ECC/skills/agent-eval/SKILL.md
Samarjeet Singh Tomar 754b8dd76c
fix: make the installer runtime pass strict supply-chain vetting (#2503)
* fix: make the installer runtime pass strict supply-chain vetting

Remediate the four enterprise supply-chain vetting blockers from
affaan-m/ECC#2502 so the installer runtime (package.json + manifests +
scripts/lib/**) passes strict exact-pin evidence policy:

1. Remove the package.json `postinstall` lifecycle script (it only echoed a
   post-install banner) and move that banner to an explicit opt-in
   `npm run welcome` command. No install-time lifecycle script remains.
2. Exact-pin every dependency in package.json (dependencies + devDependencies)
   to the versions already resolved in package-lock.json; no ^/~ ranges.
3. Replace non-ASCII characters on the installer runtime script/config surface:
   em-dashes (U+2014) in scripts/lib/{path-safety,install-executor,
   install/link-rewrite}.js comments and the two "Itô" (U+00F4) occurrences in
   manifests/{install-components,install-modules}.json descriptions become
   ASCII, so strict-surface Unicode scanners are clean.
4. Drop the bare `require("ajv")` from scripts/lib/install-state.js; the file
   already carries a complete hand-rolled validator enforcing the same
   schemas/install-state.schema.json (ecc.install.v1) constraints, so the
   installer closure is dependency-free (zero non-builtin bare requires).

Refs affaan-m/ECC#2502

* fix: avoid unpinned welcome invocations

Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>

* fix: validate translated skill frontmatter

Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>

* fix: repair skill frontmatter YAML

Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>

* fix: add MIT license to core skill manifests; pin verification-loop tsc invocation

* fix: preserve tsc/pyright exit status in verification-loop type-check (set -o pipefail)

* chore(deps): sync lockfiles with exact-pinned package.json

Regenerate package-lock.json and yarn.lock so the pinned dependency
specs are reflected in both lockfiles. npm ci and Yarn's --immutable
install now pass the sync check. The resolution tree is unchanged
(231 yarn resolutions, byte-identical set; zero npm transitive drift);
only the root descriptor strings move from ranges to the versions
already resolved in the committed lockfiles.

Addresses the Codex P1 on #2503.

---------

Signed-off-by: Samar Tomar <samar_tomar@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Samarjeet Singh Tomar <samartomar@gmail.com>
2026-07-17 17:13:49 -04:00

4.4 KiB

name description license metadata tools
agent-eval Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics MIT
origin
ECC
Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob

Agent Eval Skill

A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.

When to Activate

  • Comparing coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on your own codebase
  • Measuring agent performance before adopting a new tool or model
  • Running regression checks when an agent updates its model or tooling
  • Producing data-backed agent selection decisions for a team

Installation

Note: Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.

Core Concepts

YAML Task Definitions

Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:

name: add-retry-logic
description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
repo: ./my-project
files:
  - src/http_client.py
prompt: |
  Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
  Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
  - type: grep
    pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
    files: src/http_client.py
commit: "abc1234"  # pin to specific commit for reproducibility

Git Worktree Isolation

Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.

Metrics Collected

Metric What It Measures
Pass rate Did the agent produce code that passes the judge?
Cost API spend per task (when available)
Time Wall-clock seconds to completion
Consistency Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%)

Workflow

1. Define Tasks

Create a tasks/ directory with YAML files, one per task:

mkdir tasks
# Write task definitions (see template above)

2. Run Agents

Execute agents against your tasks:

agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3

Each run:

  1. Creates a fresh git worktree from the specified commit
  2. Hands the prompt to the agent
  3. Runs the judge criteria
  4. Records pass/fail, cost, and time

3. Compare Results

Generate a comparison report:

agent-eval report --format table
Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
│ Agent        │ Pass Rate │ Cost   │ Time   │ Consistency │
├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
│ claude-code  │ 3/3       │ $0.12  │ 45s    │ 100%        │
│ aider        │ 2/3       │ $0.08  │ 38s    │  67%        │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘

Judge Types

Code-Based (deterministic)

judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/ -v
  - type: command
    command: npm run build

Pattern-Based

judge:
  - type: grep
    pattern: "class.*Retry"
    files: src/**/*.py

Model-Based (LLM-as-judge)

judge:
  - type: llm
    prompt: |
      Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
      Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.

Best Practices

  • Start with 3-5 tasks that represent your real workload, not toy examples
  • Run at least 3 trials per agent to capture variance — agents are non-deterministic
  • Pin the commit in your task YAML so results are reproducible across days/weeks
  • Include at least one deterministic judge (tests, build) per task — LLM judges add noise
  • Track cost alongside pass rate — a 95% agent at 10x the cost may not be the right choice
  • Version your task definitions — they are test fixtures, treat them as code