Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
开发执行命令clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

llm-judgeLLM judge 文档

Agent Skill

llm-judge 用于辅助前端页面、组件、样式和交互逻辑开发,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要维护前端项目、生成组件或检查界面实现时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

8,256

周安装

351

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

2,892
OpenClaw

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT-0

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:llm-judge(LLM judge 文档)
来源仓库:https://github.com/anderskev/llm-judge
安装命令:
openclaw skills install llm-judge
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install llm-judge

简介

llm-judge 用于比较多个代码实现与需求规范的符合程度。

  • 适合在选型或评审阶段判断方案优劣。适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。
  • 可输出结构化对比报告和评分依据。llm-judge 属于开发类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。
  • 使用前需准备需求文档和候选实现代码。
  • 建议人工复核评分逻辑避免片面判断。

SKILL.md

name
llm-judge
description
Use when comparing two or more code implementations against a spec or requirements doc. Triggers on \"which repo is better\", \"compare these implementations\", \"evaluate both solutions\", \"rank these codebases\", or \"judge which approach wins\". Also covers choosing between competing PRs or vendor submissions solving the same problem. Does NOT review a single codebase for quality \— use code review skills instead. Does NOT evaluate strategy docs \— use strategy-review. Requires a spec file and 2+ repo paths.
disable-model-invocation
true

LLM Judge

Compare code implementations across multiple repositories using structured evaluation.

Usage

/beagle-analysis:llm-judge <spec> <repo1> <repo2> [repo3...] [--labels=...] [--weights=...] [--branch=...]

Arguments

ArgumentRequiredDescription
specYesPath to spec/requirements document
reposYes2+ paths to repositories to compare
--labelsNoComma-separated labels (default: directory names)
--weightsNoOverride weights, e.g. functionality:40,security:30
--branchNoBranch to compare against main (default: main)

Workflow

  1. Parse $ARGUMENTS into spec_path, repo_paths, labels, weights, and branch.
  2. Validate the spec file, each repo path, and the minimum repo count.
  3. Read the spec document into memory.
  4. Load this skill and the supporting reference files.
  5. Spawn one Phase 1 repo agent per repository to gather facts only.
  6. Validate the repo-agent JSON results before proceeding.
  7. Spawn one Phase 2 judge agent per dimension.
  8. Aggregate scores, compute weighted totals, rank repos, and write the report.
  9. Display the markdown summary and verify the JSON report.

Hard gates

Sequenced workflow: do not start the next phase until the current gate passes. Each pass condition must be checkable (file on disk, non-empty content, or json.load succeeds)—not “I reviewed internally.”

GatePass conditionUnblocks
A — Inputsspec_path is a readable file and non-empty; len(repo_paths) ≥ 2; each path contains .git.Phase 1 repo agents
B — Phase 1 factsFor each repo agent output: stdin/stdout parses as JSON; required keys/shape match references/fact-schema.md.Phase 2 judge agents
C — Phase 2 scoresFive judge outputs (one per dimension) each parse as JSON; each includes a score (and justification) for every repo label.Aggregation
D — Report file.beagle/llm-judge-report.json exists; python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/llm-judge-report.json'))" exits 0.Markdown summary to the user
E — ConsistencySummary table and verdict use the same labels, weights, and per-dimension scores as the JSON report.Mark task complete

Parallelism is allowed within a phase (all Phase 1 tasks together; all Phase 2 tasks together), but Phase 2 must not start until Gate B passes, and the user-visible summary must not precede Gate D.

Command Workflow

Step 1: Parse Arguments

Parse $ARGUMENTS to extract:

  • spec_path: first positional argument
  • repo_paths: remaining positional arguments (must be 2+)
  • labels: from --labels or derived from directory names
  • weights: from --weights or defaults
  • branch: from --branch or main

Default Weights:

{
  "functionality": 30,
  "security": 25,
  "tests": 20,
  "overengineering": 15,
  "dead_code": 10
}

Step 2: Validate Inputs

[ -f "$SPEC_PATH" ] || { echo "Error: Spec file not found: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }

for repo in "${REPO_PATHS[@]}"; do
  [ -d "$repo/.git" ] || { echo "Error: Not a git repository: $repo"; exit 1; }
done

[ ${#REPO_PATHS[@]} -ge 2 ] || { echo "Error: Need at least 2 repositories to compare"; exit 1; }

Step 3: Read Spec Document

SPEC_CONTENT=$(cat "$SPEC_PATH") || { echo "Error: Failed to read spec file: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }
[ -z "$SPEC_CONTENT" ] && { echo "Error: Spec file is empty: $SPEC_PATH"; exit 1; }

Step 4: Load the Skill

Load the llm-judge skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge")

Step 5: Phase 1 - Spawn Repo Agents

Spawn one Task per repo:

You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Your Repo:** $LABEL at $REPO_PATH

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Instructions:**
1. Load skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge")
2. Read references/repo-agent.md for detailed instructions
3. Read references/fact-schema.md for the output format
4. Load Skill(skill: "beagle-core:llm-artifacts-detection") for analysis

Explore the repository and gather facts. Return ONLY valid JSON following the fact schema.

Do NOT score or judge. Only gather facts.

Collect all repo outputs into ALL_FACTS.

Step 6: Validate Phase 1 Results

echo "$FACTS" | python3 -c "import json,sys; json.load(sys.stdin)" 2>/dev/null || { echo "Error: Invalid JSON from $LABEL"; exit 1; }

Step 7: Phase 2 - Spawn Judge Agents

Spawn five judge agents, one per dimension:

You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Facts from all repos:**
$ALL_FACTS_JSON

**Instructions:**
1. Load skill: Skill(skill: "beagle-analysis:llm-judge")
2. Read references/judge-agents.md for detailed instructions
3. Read references/scoring-rubrics.md for the $DIMENSION rubric

Score each repo on $DIMENSION. Return ONLY valid JSON with scores and justifications.

Step 8: Aggregate Scores

for repo_label in labels:
    scores[repo_label] = {}
    for dimension in dimensions:
        scores[repo_label][dimension] = judge_outputs[dimension]['scores'][repo_label]

    weighted_total = sum(
        scores[repo_label][dim]['score'] * weights[dim] / 100
        for dim in dimensions
    )
    scores[repo_label]['weighted_total'] = round(weighted_total, 2)

ranking = sorted(labels, key=lambda l: scores[l]['weighted_total'], reverse=True)

Step 9: Generate Verdict

Name the winner, explain why they won, and note any close calls or trade-offs.

Step 10: Write JSON Report

mkdir -p .beagle

Write .beagle/llm-judge-report.json with version, timestamp, repo metadata, weights, scores, ranking, and verdict.

Step 11: Display Summary

Render a markdown summary with the scores table, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.

Step 12: Verification

python3 -c "import json; json.load(open('.beagle/llm-judge-report.json'))" && echo "Valid report"

Output Shape

The generated report should include:

  • repo labels and paths
  • per-dimension scores and justifications
  • weighted totals and ranking
  • a verdict explaining the winner

Reference Files

FilePurpose
references/fact-schema.mdJSON schema for Phase 1 facts
references/scoring-rubrics.mdDetailed rubrics for each dimension
references/repo-agent.mdInstructions for Phase 1 agents
references/judge-agents.mdInstructions for Phase 2 judges

Scoring Model

DimensionDefault WeightEvaluates
Functionality30%Spec compliance, test pass rate
Security25%Vulnerabilities, security patterns
Test Quality20%Coverage, DRY, mock boundaries
Overengineering15%Unnecessary complexity
Dead Code10%Unused code, TODOs

Scoring Scale

ScoreMeaning
5Excellent - Exceeds expectations
4Good - Meets requirements, minor issues
3Average - Functional but notable gaps
2Below Average - Significant issues
1Poor - Fails basic requirements

Phase 1: Spawning Repo Agents

For each repository, spawn a Task agent with:

You are a Phase 1 Repo Agent for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Your Repo:** $REPO_LABEL at $REPO_PATH
**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Instructions:** Read @beagle:llm-judge references/repo-agent.md

Gather facts and return a JSON object following the schema in references/fact-schema.md.

Load @beagle:llm-artifacts-detection for dead code and overengineering analysis.

Return ONLY valid JSON, no markdown or explanations.

Collect all repo-agent outputs into ALL_FACTS.

Phase 2: Spawning Judge Agents

After all Phase 1 agents complete, spawn 5 judge agents, one per dimension:

You are the $DIMENSION Judge for the LLM Judge evaluation.

**Spec Document:**
$SPEC_CONTENT

**Facts from all repos:**
$ALL_FACTS_JSON

**Instructions:** Read @beagle:llm-judge references/judge-agents.md

Score each repo on $DIMENSION using the rubric in references/scoring-rubrics.md.

Return ONLY valid JSON following the judge output schema.

Aggregation

  1. Collect the five judge outputs.
  2. Compute each repo's weighted total with the configured weights.
  3. Rank repos by weighted total in descending order.
  4. Generate a verdict that explains the result and any close calls.
  5. Write .beagle/llm-judge-report.json.

Output

Display a markdown summary with scores, ranking, verdict, and detailed justifications.

Verification

Before completing (maps to Hard gates D and E):

  1. Gate D: .beagle/llm-judge-report.json exists and json.load succeeds.
  2. Gate E / completeness: Every repo label has scores for every dimension; each weighted_total equals the sum over dimensions of (score × weight / 100) using the configured weights; markdown summary matches the JSON report.

Rules

  • Always validate inputs before proceeding
  • Spawn Phase 1 agents in parallel, then wait before Phase 2
  • Spawn Phase 2 agents in parallel, one per dimension
  • Every score must have a justification
  • Write the JSON report before displaying the summary

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

OpenClaw

91.31%
按下载量换算2,641

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install llm-judge 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills