LLM As Judge

LLM-as-Judge Skill

Built-in evaluation capability for Claude/Copilot agents. Evaluate and compare LLM responses directly within the agent's reasoning process without external API calls.

How It Works

The agent uses its own reasoning to evaluate responses without external calls:

1. You provide — Two or more responses to compare, or criteria to score against
2. Agent evaluates — Internal reasoning, no API calls
3. Agent returns — Structured judgment (score, verdict, reasoning)
4. Results stored — JSON or markdown for reference

No external dependencies. No scripts. No API calls. The agent handles the entire evaluation within its context.

When to Use This Skill

• Compare LLM outputs — "Which response is better?" Agent uses internal reasoning
• Score response quality — "Rate this 1-10 on relevance/accuracy/clarity" — Agent evaluates directly
• Detect hallucinations — "Check if this response hallucinated facts" — Agent reasoning-based detection
• Verify grounding — "Is this RAG response grounded in the context?" — Agent-native evaluation
• Code quality assessment — "Evaluate this generated code" — Agent code review
• Model comparison — "Compare responses from two models" — Agent arbitration

Core Concepts

Judge Model

The agent itself acts as the judge. It evaluates responses using its internal knowledge and reasoning without making external API calls.

Key characteristics:

• Built-in to the agent (Copilot/Claude)
• Uses reasoning within the model's context
• No API keys or external services
• Transparent reasoning (you see the evaluation logic)
• Immediate results (no latency)

Evaluation Approaches

Evaluation techniques the agent can apply:

1. Rubric-Based Evaluation (Recommended)

Generates evaluation questions (rubrics) then scores against them. Most reliable.

Pattern:

Step 1: Agent generates rubrics (yes/no questions) based on the task
- "Is the response factually accurate?"
- "Does it address all requirements?"
- "Is the tone appropriate?"

Step 2: Agent evaluates response against each rubric
- Answer each question: yes/no/partial

Step 3: Agent aggregates scores
- Overall score: 0-1 (or 1-5)
- Per-rubric results for transparency

Use when: You want detailed, explainable evaluation scores.

2. Direct Comparison (Pairwise)

Agent compares two responses head-to-head on defined criteria.

Pattern:

Criterion 1 (Accuracy): Response A [score] vs Response B [score] → Winner: A
Criterion 2 (Clarity): Response A [score] vs Response B [score] → Winner: B
Criterion 3 (Completeness): Response A [score] vs Response B [score] → Winner: A
Overall: Response A wins 2/3 criteria

Use when: You need to pick the better of two outputs.

3. Hallucination Detection (Semantic Validity)

Agent checks if claims are supported by provided context/knowledge.

Pattern:

Context: "Python released in 1991"
Response: "Python was released in 1990. Latest version is 4.0."

Claim 1: "Python released in 1990" → UNSUPPORTED (contradicts context)
Claim 2: "Latest version is 4.0" → UNSUPPORTED (no evidence provided)
Hallucination Score: 100% (2/2 claims unsupported)

Use when: You're checking RAG responses or fact-based content.

4. Instruction Compliance

Agent checks if response follows specific requirements.

Pattern:

Requirements:
   1. Under 300 words? YES
   2. Uses examples? YES
   3. Explains reasoning? PARTIAL
   4. Professional tone? YES
   
Compliance Score: 3.5/4 = 88%

Use when: Evaluating task-specific requirements (length, format, style).

5. Multi-Dimensional Scoring

Agent rates on multiple quality dimensions simultaneously.

Pattern:

Accuracy: 8/10 (mostly correct, minor detail missed)
Relevance: 9/10 (directly addresses question)
Clarity: 7/10 (dense in places)
Completeness: 8/10 (covers main points)
Tone: 9/10 (professional and empathetic)

AVERAGE: 8.2/10

Use when: You need comprehensive quality assessment.

6. Structured Scoring

Agent produces machine-readable scores (JSON) for aggregation.

Pattern:

{
  "overall_score": 0.82,
  "dimensions": {
    "accuracy": 0.85,
    "relevance": 0.90,
    "clarity": 0.70,
    "completeness": 0.80,
    "tone": 0.90
  },
  "verdict": "GOOD",
  "rationale": "..."
}

Use when: You're collecting results for reporting/analysis.

• Context Comparison — Agent checks if claims are grounded in provided facts
• Pattern Recognition — Agent identifies common issues (hallucinations, logical errors, etc.)
• Rubric-Based — Agent applies detailed evaluation criteria you provide

Evaluation Dimensions

Common scoring criteria the agent uses:

• Relevance — Does the response address the query?
• Accuracy — Is the information factually correct?
• Completeness — Does it cover all aspects of the question?
• Clarity — Is the response understandable and well-structured?
• Coherence — Is there logical flow and consistency?
• Hallucination — Does it invent facts not supported by context?
• Toxicity — Does it contain harmful content?
• Alignment — Does it follow instructions and safety guidelines?

Multi-Agent Evaluation

For critical evaluation decisions, you can invoke multiple agents sequentially (one at a time) with different models to build consensus and improve reliability.

How Sequential Multi-Agent Works

Your Evaluation Request
        ↓
Agent 1 (Claude Sonnet latest) evaluates → Result 1
        ↓
Agent 2 (GPT-5.4 or latest) evaluates → Result 2
        ↓
Agent 3 (Gemini Pro latest) evaluates → Result 3
        ↓
Aggregate & Compare Results
        ↓
Consensus Verdict: "2/3 agents agree" or "Mixed signals"

Why use multiple agents?

Sequential Invocation (Not Parallel)

Copilot doesn't efficiently run agents in parallel. Use sequential invocation:

❌ DON'T try parallel agents - Copilot will serialize anyway (slower, messier)

✓ DO invoke sequentially:
   1. Call Agent 1 via @agent-1 or conversation
   2. Wait for Agent 1 result
   3. Call Agent 2 with same inputs
   4. Wait for Agent 2 result
   5. Compare & aggregate

Result Aggregation

After all agents evaluate, aggregate results:

Agent 1 (Claude Sonnet):  Score: 8.5/10, Verdict: GOOD
Agent 2 (GPT-5.4):        Score: 8/10,   Verdict: GOOD
Agent 3 (Gemini Pro):     Score: 7.5/10, Verdict: ACCEPTABLE

Consensus Score: (8.5 + 8 + 7.5) / 3 = 8.0/10
Consensus Verdict: GOOD (3/3 agree direction)
Confidence: HIGH (low variance)
Best insight: Claude Sonnet noted missing error handling (relevant)

Implementation Patterns

Pattern -1 — Sequential Multi-Agent Evaluation (Consensus-Based)

Use case: High-stakes evaluation requiring multiple perspectives and consensus

Setup: Multiple agents available (Claude Sonnet, GPT-5.4, Gemini Pro, or alternates)

You: "Evaluate this code using multiple agents. I need consensus.

Code to evaluate:
{code}

Requirements:
- Check for: correctness, performance, maintainability, safety
- Rate each: 1-5
- Verdict: PASS/FAIL

Use 3 different evaluation agents sequentially:
1. Claude Opus (strongest reasoning)
2. Claude Sonnet (balanced) 
3. Claude Haiku (fast verification)

For each agent:
  a) Provide the same evaluation criteria
  b) Ask to evaluate independently
  c) Capture the verdict and reasoning
  
Then aggregate results showing:
- Each agent's verdict
- Agreement/disagreement patterns
- Consensus verdict
- Confidence level"

---

Agent 1 (Claude Sonnet latest) evaluates:
[Agent 1 reasoning and scoring...]
Verdict: PASS (8/10) - "Code is correct and performant"

Agent 2 (GPT-5.4 or latest) evaluates:
[Agent 2 reasoning and scoring...]
Verdict: PASS (7/10) - "Correct but could optimize memory usage"

Agent 3 (Gemini Pro latest) evaluates:
[Agent 3 reasoning and scoring...]
Verdict: PASS (7/10) - "Works correctly, needs refactoring for clarity"

---

CONSENSUS RESULTS:
Score (average): 7.3/10
Verdict agreement: 3/3 PASS
Confidence: HIGH

Agent Agreement:
- Claude Sonnet: 8/10 PASS
- GPT-5.4: 7/10 PASS
- Gemini Pro: 7/10 PASS

Agreement Matrix:
- Correctness: All 3 agree [OK]
- Performance: 2/3 concerned
- Maintainability: 2/3 raised concerns
- Safety: All 3 agree [OK]

Recommendation: ACCEPT with improvements
Priority fixes: Performance optimization, code clarity

When to use:

• Critical code reviews
• High-stakes decisions (compliance, security)
• When you need to know "do most models agree?"
• To understand model-specific blind spots

Workflow:

1. Write your evaluation criteria once
2. Invoke Agent 1, capture results
3. Invoke Agent 2 with same criteria
4. Invoke Agent 3 with same criteria
5. Aggregate and compare verdicts
6. Note where agents diverge (often most interesting!)

Pattern 0 — Rubric-Based Evaluation (Most Reliable)

Use case: Comprehensive evaluation with justified scores

Based on: generative-ai/gemini/evaluation

Step 1. You provide response + evaluation task:

You: "Generate rubrics then evaluate this response:

Task: '{task}'

Response: '{response}'

Generate yes/no questions to evaluate it, then score the response against each rubric."

Step 2. Agent generates rubrics:

Agent:
Rubric 1: "Is the response factually accurate?"
Rubric 2: "Does it address all requirements?"
Rubric 3: "Is the explanation clear?"
Rubric 4: "Is the tone appropriate?"

Step 3. Agent evaluates response against each rubric:

Rubric 1: YES - All facts verified against context
Rubric 2: YES - All 4 requirements addressed
Rubric 3: MOSTLY - Clear but one section is dense
Rubric 4: YES - Professional and friendly

Per-rubric results:
- Rubric 1: ✓
- Rubric 2: ✓
- Rubric 3: ~
- Rubric 4: ✓

Overall score: 3.75/4 = 94%

Why this pattern: Explicit rubrics = explainable scoring = easier to audit and improve.

Pattern 1 — Direct Comparison

Use case: Quickly determine which response is better

You: "Compare these two responses. Which is better?

Response A: {response_a}

Response B: {response_b}

Query/Context: {context}"

Agent:
Winner: [A/B/TIE]
Reason: [Agent reasoning]
Strengths of winner: [list]
Areas for improvement: [list]

No setup needed. The agent evaluates directly using internal reasoning.

Pattern 2 — Structured Quality Scoring

Use case: Rate response on multiple dimensions

You: "Score this response 1-5 on each dimension:

Response: {response}

Dimensions:
1. Accuracy (technical correctness)
2. Clarity (understandability)
3. Completeness (covers all aspects)
4. Examples (includes concrete samples)
5. Tone (appropriate for audience)"

Agent:
- Accuracy: 4/5 — Mostly correct, one edge case missed
- Clarity: 5/5 — Very clear and well-explained
- Completeness: 3/5 — Misses error handling
- Examples: 4/5 — Good examples, could use more
- Tone: 5/5 — Professional and engaging

Average: 4.2/5

Pattern 3 — Hallucination Detection

Use case: Verify if claims are grounded in provided context

You: "Check this response for hallucinations.

Context: {context}

Response to evaluate: {response}

Instructions:
- Identify claims NOT in the context
- Identify claims that CONTRADICT the context
- Mark claims that ARE grounded
- Provide a verdict: PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL"

Agent:
Unsupported claims:
1. [claim] - not mentioned in context
2. [claim] - contradicts context

Grounded claims:
1. [claim] - directly from context
2. [claim] - supported by context

Verdict: PARTIAL HALLUCINATION (2 unsupported claims)

Pattern 4 — Head-to-Head Model Comparison

Use case: Compare how different models handled the same task

You: "Compare these responses from different models.

Task: {task}

Model A Response: {response_a}

Model B Response: {response_b}

Evaluate on: Accuracy, Clarity, Completeness, Creativity, Safety"

Agent:
Model A:
- Accuracy: 4/5
- Clarity: 4/5
- Completeness: 5/5
- Creativity: 3/5
- Safety: 5/5
Average: 4.2/5

Model B:
- Accuracy: 5/5
- Clarity: 5/5
- Completeness: 4/5
- Creativity: 5/5
- Safety: 4/5
Average: 4.6/5

Winner: Model B (edge in creativity and accuracy)

Pattern 5 — Code Quality Review

Use case: Evaluate generated code

You: "Review this generated code:

Code: {code}

Task: {task}

Check for:
- Correctness (solves the problem)
- Readability (code style)
- Efficiency (performance)
- Safety (error handling)
- Best practices (language conventions)"

Agent:
Correctness: ✓ Correctly solves the problem
Readability: ✓ Clear variable names, good structure
Efficiency: ~ Could use caching for repeated calls
Safety: Issue: Missing null check on line 5
Best practices: ✓ Follows PEP 8 conventions

Summary: Good code, needs error handling fix

Pattern 6 — RAG Response Grounding

Use case: Verify retrieval-augmented generation quality

You: "Evaluate this RAG response:

Query: {query}

Retrieved Context: {context}

Generated Response: {response}

Check:
1. Is the response grounded in the context?
2. Does it accurately use the retrieved information?
3. Does it add unsupported information?"

Agent:
Grounding score: 4/5 (mostly grounded with one assumption)

Grounded claims:
- [claim] from {section}
- [claim] from {section}

Assumptions/Additions:
- [assumption] - reasonable but not in context
- [addition] - factual but not from retrieval

Verdict: GOOD (well-grounded with minor inference)

Best Practices

• Be specific — Provide full context and clear evaluation criteria
• Use rubrics — Define what each score means (e.g., 5="excellent", 3="acceptable")
• Include examples — Show good and bad evaluations so agent calibrates correctly
• Ask for reasoning — Request explanations for scores, not just numbers
• Verify consistency — Check agent evaluation on multiple similar responses
• Provide context — The more background, the better the evaluation
• Chain of thought — Ask agent to "think through step by step"

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall: Vague Criteria

Problem: "Is this good?" — Agent doesn't know what "good" means Solution: Be specific: "Is this accurate, clear, and complete? Rate 1-5 on each."

Pitfall: Insufficient Context

Problem: Agent can't verify hallucinations without knowing what facts are true Solution: Always provide source material or accepted facts to evaluate against

Pitfall: Contradictory Instructions

Problem: "Rate this 1-10 but also tell me if it's perfect" Solution: Use consistent scales and clear definitions

Pitfall: Ambiguous Scoring

Problem: What does a "3" mean vs a "4"? Agent may be inconsistent Solution: Define your scale: 5=excellent, 4=good, 3=acceptable, 2=flawed, 1=broken

Resources

• Judge Prompt Templates — See references/judge-templates.md for reusable templates
• Practical Use Cases — See references/use-cases.md for real-world examples
• Evaluation Approaches — See references/evaluation-approaches.md for patterns and strategies

References & Sources

This skill incorporates evaluation patterns and best practices from:

Rubric-Based Evaluation

• Source: generative-ai/gemini/evaluation/evaltask_approach/rubric_based_eval.ipynb
• Pattern: Generate evaluation rubrics (yes/no questions), then score responses against them
• Why: Explainable, reproducible, and easier to audit evaluation results

Reward Scoring & Automatic Evaluation

• Source: ai-engineering-hub/art_mcp_rl/ (RULER - LLM-as-judge for automatic reward scoring)
• Pattern: Automatic evaluation without hand-labeled data
• Application: Multi-dimensional scoring for reinforcement learning feedback

Model Comparison Frameworks

• Source: generative-ai/gemini/evaluation/evaltask_approach/compare_generative_ai_models.ipynb
• Pattern: Head-to-head comparison across defined metrics
• Metrics: Accuracy, Clarity, Completeness, Relevance, Tone, Safety

RAG Evaluation Quality

• Source: ai-engineering-hub/eval-and-observability/ (Opik E2E RAG evaluation)
• Pattern: Grounding verification for retrieval-augmented generation
• Focus: Ensuring responses are based on retrieved context

Multi-Modal & Text Quality Rubrics

• Source: generative-ai/gemini/evaluation/evaltask_approach/
• Patterns: Pointwise (single response) and Pairwise (comparison) evaluation
• Use Cases: Instruction following, text quality, hallucination detection

Version History

• v1.3.0 (March 2026) — Improved sub-agent prompts with structured reasoning, confidence scoring, edge case detection, and richer aggregation analysis
• v1.2.0 (March 2026) — Multi-agent sequential evaluation for consensus-based verdicts, improved confidence scoring
• v1.1.0 (March 2026) — Added rubric-based evaluation pattern (primary), documented local repo sources
• v1.0.0 (March 2026) — Initial agent-native evaluation framework