Results for “quality-report”

Evaluate everything the PA agent manages — tasks, skills, PA network health, billing, calendar connections, and memory quality. Use when: owner asks for an evaluation, wants to know what's working and what isn't, or requests a performance report. Combines supervisor status with quality scoring.

Audits test code in any language using the academic testsmells.org 19-smell catalog, producing a severity-ranked report with specific locations and actionable fixes.

Evaluate retrieval quality from the local RAG index

Patterns and techniques for evaluating and improving AI agent outputs. Use this skill when: - Implementing self-critique and reflection loops - Building evaluator-optimizer pipelines for quality-critical generation - Creating test-driven code refinement workflows - Designing rubric-based or LLM-as-judge evaluation systems - Adding iterative improvement to agent outputs (code, reports, analysis) - Measuring and improving agent response quality

Evaluate LLM outputs systematically — benchmarks, automated metrics, human preference, and regression tracking

Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.

Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.

Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.

Systematically explore and test a web application to find bugs, UX issues, and other problems. Use when asked to "dogfood", "QA", "exploratory test", "find issues", "bug hunt", "test this app/site/platform", or review the quality of a web application. Produces a structured report with full reproduction evidence -- step-by-step screenshots, repro videos, and detailed repro steps for every issue -- so findings can be handed directly to the responsible teams.

Route web-game auto-playtesting with WAI Play (waiterve/wai-play): decide whether the next move is a testability check, authoring or repairing the `GameFlowAgentAPI` bridge, running a real browser playtest, reading the five-dimension quality report, or unblocking a key node the agent cannot reach. Use when the user wants an AI agent to actually play their HTML5 / canvas / vibe-coded web game and return reproducible evidence, scores, and fix suggestions across the five supported types (survivor-like, arcade shooter, platformer, puzzle/card, visual novel). Triggers on: wai-play, WAI Play, auto-playtest, AI plays my game, web game testing agent, GameFlowAgentAPI, GameFlowIntegration, jumpToScenario, game quality score, playtest evidence. Route Unity/Unreal frame-time work to `game-performance-profiler`, engine build failures to `game-build-log-triage`, human playtest notes to `game-demo-feedback-triage`, and generic browser automation to `browser-harness`.

Sets up and audits the Claude Code harness for a project: CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, skills, subagents, settings.json permissions, hooks, verification loop. Commands: kickoff (scaffold new setup), check-playbook (score an existing one), scouting-report (last scorecard), adjust (fix bloat/misplaced instructions), drill (turn advisory prose into real hooks/permissions/CI), decline (record an accepted risk), gameplan (work order with acceptance criteria before building), watch-film (check a diff against that order for scope creep/weakened tests/false claims). Use for setting up Claude Code, or on: "Claude ignores my CLAUDE.md", "it's huge and still misses things", "it said done but ran nothing", "it changed files I didn't ask about", "it weakened a test to pass", "rule, skill, or hook?", "is my setup any good". Not for code quality (code-audit), test coverage (test-assessment), one-off prompt wording (genie-proof-prompts), new skill authoring (skill-creator), or compacting a conversation (handoff).