self-eval
Honestly evaluate AI work quality using a two-axis scoring system. Use after completing a task, code review, or work session to get an unbiased assessment. Detects score inflation, forces devil's advocate reasoning, and persists scores across sessions.
- Installs
- 575
- Last 24h
- —
- Trending rank
- —
- Security
- Not audited
Install
Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.
npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill self-eval- 01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
- 02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads self-eval automatically when relevant.
- 03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.
SKILL.md
The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.
Self-Eval: Honest Work Evaluation
ultrathink
Tier: STANDARD Category: Engineering / Quality Dependencies: None (prompt-only, no external tools required)
Description
Self-eval is a Claude Code skill that produces honest, calibrated work evaluations. It replaces the default AI tendency to rate everything 4/5 with a structured two-axis scoring system, mandatory devil's advocate reasoning, and cross-session anti-inflation detection.
The core insight: AI self-assessment converges to "everything is a 4" because a single-axis score conflates task difficulty with execution quality. Self-eval separates these axes, then combines them via a fixed matrix that the model cannot override.
Features
- Two-axis scoring — Independently rates task ambition (Low/Medium/High) and execution quality (Poor/Adequate/Strong), then combines via a lookup matrix
- Mandatory devil's advocate — Before finalizing, must argue for both higher AND lower scores, then resolve the tension
- Score persistence — Appends scores to
.self-eval-scores.jsonlin the working directory, building history across sessions - Anti-inflation detection — Reads past scores and flags clustering (4+ of last 5 identical)
- Matrix-locked scoring — The composite score comes from the matrix, not from direct selection. Low ambition caps at 2/5 regardless of execution quality
Usage
After completing work in a Claude Code session:
/self-eval
With context about what to evaluate:
/self-eval the authentication refactor we just completed
The skill reviews the conversation history, identifies what was accomplished, scores it on both axes, runs the devil's advocate check, and appends the result to the score history file.
Examples
Example 1: Feature Implementation
/self-eval added pagination to the user list API
Output:
## Self-Evaluation
**Task:** Added cursor-based pagination to the user list API endpoint
**Ambition:** Medium — New feature with established patterns, but required careful backwards compatibility
**Execution:** Strong — All tests pass, handles edge cases, existing clients unaffected
**Devil's Advocate:**
- Lower: Pagination is well-documented. The pattern was copied from another endpoint with minor changes. Could argue Low ambition.
- Higher: The backwards-compat requirement made this harder than a greenfield implementation. Had to support both offset and cursor modes.
- Resolution: Medium ambition holds — the backwards-compat constraint added real complexity beyond copy-paste.
**Score: 4** — Solid execution on meaningful work with real constraints.
Example 2: Bug Fix
/self-eval
Output:
## Self-Evaluation
**Task:** Fixed race condition in the checkout flow causing duplicate orders
**Ambition:** Medium — Required debugging across 3 services to find the root cause
**Execution:** Adequate — Fix works but the test only covers the exact scenario reported, not the general class of race conditions
**Devil's Advocate:**
- Lower: The fix was a single line (adding a mutex). Once found, it was trivial.
- Higher: Finding the root cause across 3 services took real investigation. The mutex placement required understanding the full flow.
- Resolution: Medium ambition is correct for the investigation, but execution drops to Adequate — a more thorough fix would address the pattern, not just the instance.
**Score: 3** — Good debugging work but the fix is narrow.
What to Evaluate
$ARGUMENTS
If no arguments provided, review the full conversation history to identify what was accomplished this session. Summarize the work in one sentence before scoring.
How to Score — Two-Axis Model
Score on two independent axes, then combine using the matrix. Do NOT pick a number first and rationalize it — rate each axis separately, then read the matrix.
Axis 1: Task Ambition (what was attempted)
Rate the difficulty and risk of what was worked on. NOT how well it was done.
- Low (1) — Safe, familiar, routine. No real risk of failure. Examples: minor config changes, simple refactors, copy-paste with small modifications, tasks you were confident you'd complete before starting.
- Medium (2) — Meaningful work with novelty or challenge. Partial failure was possible. Examples: new feature implementation, integrating an unfamiliar API, architectural changes, debugging a tricky issue.
- High (3) — Ambitious, unfamiliar, or high-stakes. Real risk of complete failure. Examples: building something from scratch in an unfamiliar domain, complex system redesign, performance-critical optimization, shipping to production under pressure.
Self-check: If you were confident of success before starting, ambition is Low or Medium, not High.
Axis 2: Execution Quality (how well it was done)
Rate the quality of the actual output, independent of how ambitious the task was.
- Poor (1) — Major failures, incomplete, wrong output, or abandoned mid-task. The deliverable doesn't meet its own stated criteria.
- Adequate (2) — Completed but with gaps, shortcuts, or missing rigor. Did the thing but left obvious improvements on the table.
- Strong (3) — Well-executed, thorough, quality output. No obvious improvements left undone given the scope.
Composite Score Matrix
| Poor Exec (1) | Adequate Exec (2) | Strong Exec (3) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low Ambition (1) | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Medium Ambition (2) | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| High Ambition (3) | 2 | 4 | 5 |
Read the matrix, don't override it. The composite is your score. The devil's advocate below can cause you to re-rate an axis — but you cannot directly override the matrix result.
Key properties:
- Low ambition caps at 2. Safe work done perfectly is still safe work.
- A 5 requires BOTH high ambition AND strong execution. It should be rare.
- High ambition + poor execution = 2. Bold failure hurts.
- The most common honest score for solid work is 3 (medium ambition, adequate execution).
Devil's Advocate (MANDATORY)
Before writing your final score, you MUST write all three of these:
- Case for LOWER: Why might this work deserve a lower score? What was easy, what was avoided, what was less ambitious than it appears? Would a skeptical reviewer agree with your axis ratings?
- Case for HIGHER: Why might this work deserve a higher score? What was genuinely challenging, surprising, or exceeded the original plan?
- Resolution: If either case reveals you mis-rated an axis, re-rate it and recompute the matrix result. Then state your final score with a 1-2 sentence justification that addresses at least one point from each case.
If your devil's advocate is less than 3 sentences total, you're not engaging with it — try harder.
Anti-Inflation Check
Check for a score history file at .self-eval-scores.jsonl in the current working directory.
If the file exists, read it and check the last 5 scores. If 4+ of the last 5 are the same number, flag it:
Warning: Score clustering detected. Last 5 scores: [list]. Consider whether you're anchoring to a default.
If the file doesn't exist, ask yourself: "Would an outside observer rate this the same way I am?"
Score Persistence
After presenting your evaluation, append one line to .self-eval-scores.jsonl in the current working directory:
{"date":"YYYY-MM-DD","score":N,"ambition":"Low|Medium|High","execution":"Poor|Adequate|Strong","task":"1-sentence summary"}
This enables the anti-inflation check to work across sessions. If the file doesn't exist, create it.
Output Format
Present your evaluation as:
Self-Evaluation
Task: [1-sentence summary of what was attempted] Ambition: [Low/Medium/High] — [1-sentence justification] Execution: [Poor/Adequate/Strong] — [1-sentence justification]
Devil's Advocate:
- Lower: [why it might deserve less]
- Higher: [why it might deserve more]
- Resolution: [final reasoning]
Score: [1-5] — [1-sentence final justification]
FAQ
What does the self-eval skill do?
Honestly evaluate AI work quality using a two-axis scoring system. Use after completing a task, code review, or work session to get an unbiased assessment. Detects score inflation, forces devil's advocate reasoning, and persists scores across sessions.
How do I install self-eval?
Run npx skills add https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills --skill self-eval in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/self-eval/ (personal) or .claude/skills/self-eval/ (project).
Which AI agents can use self-eval?
Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.
Is self-eval safe to install?
No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.
Who maintains self-eval?
It is published by alirezarezvani in alirezarezvani/claude-skills. It has 575 recorded installs.
More from alirezarezvani/claude-skills
engineering-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Index of the engineering-team skills bundle for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, OpenClaw, and 6 more tools. Architecture, frontend, backend, QA, DevOps, security, AI/ML, data engineering, Playwright, Stripe, AWS, MS365 (stdlib-only Python tools). Use when browsing or choosing among engineering-team role skills — load only the one specialist SKILL.md you need, never bulk-load the bundle.
finance-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Router/index for the finance skills bundled in this plugin: financial-analyst (ratio analysis, DCF valuation, budget variance, rolling forecasts), saas-metrics-coach (ARR/MRR, churn, CAC/LTV, NRR, quick ratio) and month-end-close (close calendar, reconciliations, flux review). Use when a finance request doesn't obviously match one skill and you need to pick the right one (e.g., 'analyze these financials', 'how healthy are my SaaS metrics').
marketing-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Directory and router for the marketing skills library. Use when you need to find the right marketing skill for a task, see what marketing capabilities exist, or get oriented in this plugin. 44 specialist skills across 8 pods (content, SEO + AEO, CRO, channels, growth, intelligence, sales enablement, ops), 59 stdlib Python tools. Routes to one skill — it does not execute marketing work itself.
business-growth-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Router/index for the 4 business & growth skills bundled in this plugin: customer-success-manager (health scoring, churn risk, expansion), sales-engineer (RFP analysis, competitive matrices, PoC planning), revenue-operations (pipeline, forecast accuracy, GTM efficiency), and contract-and-proposal-writer. Use when a growth/revenue request doesn't obviously match one skill and you need to pick the right one (e.g., 'which accounts are at risk', 'should we bid on this RFP').
engineering-advanced-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Index of 37 advanced engineering agent skills for Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, Cursor, OpenClaw. Use when browsing or choosing among the POWERFUL-tier engineering skills: agent design, RAG, MCP servers, CI/CD, database design, observability, security auditing, changelog/release automation, reliability (SLO/chaos/flags/operators), platform ops.
product-skills
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Use when coordinating product work across the 12 bundled product sub-skills (RICE, OKRs, UX research, design tokens, competitive teardown, analytics, experiments, discovery, roadmaps, spec-to-repo, landing pages, SaaS scaffolding) or the 4 standalone product-team plugins (user stories, Apple HIG, code-to-PRD, research summarizer). Triggers on 'help me prioritize', 'plan a product experiment', 'we ship features nobody uses', 'run the discovery loop', 'is our OST sound'. Forks context to route to one sub-skill via a deterministic signal router and returns a digest; can also drive a continuous-discovery loop (Torres cadence tracker + OST linter as machine gates) or a full goal→plan→execute→verify→close run through the repo-wide agent-harness. Distinct from project-management (how to deliver vs what to build), marketing/landing (from-scratch pages), and engineering/agent-harness (the generic loop engine this orchestrator plugs into).
Popular ai & agents skills
google-agents-cli-publish
google/agents-cli
This skill should be used when the user wants to "publish an agent", "publish my ADK agent", "register an agent with Gemini", "publish to Gemini" (formerly Gemini Enterprise), or needs guidance on the agents-cli publish gemini command. Also use when the user wants to "manage agents in Agent Registry", "list/update/delete registered agents", or "register an MCP server". Covers ADK vs A2A registration modes, programmatic and interactive usage, flag reference, auto-detection from deployment metadata, Agent Registry fleet management, and troubleshooting. Part of the agents-cli skills suite. Do NOT use for deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy).
google-agents-cli-eval
google/agents-cli
This skill should be used when the user wants to "run an evaluation", "evaluate my agent", "evaluate my ADK agent", "write an eval dataset", "analyze eval failures", "compare eval results", "optimize agent", or needs guidance on the Gemini platform eval methodology and the Quality Flywheel. Covers eval metrics, dataset schema, LLM-as-judge scoring, and common failure causes. Applies to any agents-cli project, whatever framework the agent is written in. Do NOT use for agent API code patterns (ADK: use google-agents-cli-adk-code), deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy), or project scaffolding (use google-agents-cli-scaffold).
skill-creator
anthropics/skills
Create new skills, modify and improve existing skills, and measure skill performance. Use when users want to create a skill from scratch, edit, or optimize an existing skill, run evals to test a skill, benchmark skill performance with variance analysis, or optimize a skill's description for better triggering accuracy.
codex-pet
prime-skills/runcomfy-agent-skills
Codex Pet generator on RunComfy. Build a Codex-compatible Codex Pet spritesheet.webp + pet.json from a single reference image, drop it into ${CODEXHOME:-$HOME/.codex}/pets/ / and Codex picks it up as a custom Codex Pet next to the 8 built-ins. This skill produces the exact Codex Pet atlas Codex expects (1536x1872 PNG/WebP, 8 cols x 9 rows, 192x208 cells, 9 animation states — idle, running-right, running-left, waving, jumping, failed, waiting, running, review). Calls OpenAI GPT Image 2 edit ONCE via the local RunComfy CLI as runcomfy run openai/gpt-image-2/edit to produce a canonical Codex Pet pose, then assembles all 9 animation rows programmatically with ImageMagick micro-transforms — no Codex Pro, no $imagegen, no OPENAIAPIKEY required, only RUNCOMFYTOKEN. Triggers on "codex pet", "create codex pet", "make codex pet", "hatch codex pet", "/hatch image", "desktop pet codex", "codex pets", "spritesheet.webp", or any explicit ask to build a custom pet for OpenAI Codex.
full-output-enforcement
leonxlnx/taste-skill
Overrides default LLM truncation behavior. Enforces complete code generation, bans placeholder patterns, and handles token-limit splits cleanly. Apply to any task requiring exhaustive, unabridged output.
executing-plans
obra/superpowers
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available