Evaluate

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 4e163a7a8095 · 19 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publishersharpdeveye GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source foldersharpdeveye/maestro/source/skills/evaluateThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict4e163a7a8095A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 173 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Use when the user wants a quality review, interaction audit, or to test the workflow against realistic scenarios.

---
name: evaluate
description: "Use when the user wants a quality review, interaction audit, or to test the workflow against realistic scenarios."
argument-hint: "[workflow or scenario]"
category: analysis
version: 2.0.0
user-invocable: true
---

## MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /agent-workflow — it contains workflow principles, anti-patterns, and the **Context Gathering Protocol**. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no workflow context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-maestro first.
Consult the feedback-loops reference in the agent-workflow skill for evaluation patterns, golden test sets, and regression detection.

---

Evaluate the workflow's actual interaction quality by testing it against scenarios that represent real usage.

### Evaluation Dimensions

**1. Task Completion**

- Does the workflow actually accomplish what it's supposed to?
- Does it handle the complete task or only the happy path?
- Are edge cases addressed or silently dropped?

**2. Output Quality**

- Is the output accurate, complete, and well-formatted?
- Does it match the defined output schema (if any)?
- Would a domain expert approve the output?

**3. Error Behavior**

- What happens when input is malformed?
- What happens when a tool fails?
- What happens when the model is uncertain?
- Is the error message useful or generic?

**4. User Experience**

- Is the interaction natural and intuitive?
- Are confirmations requested for destructive operations?
- Is the response time acceptable?
- Does the workflow communicate its limitations?

**5. Consistency**

- Does the same input produce consistent output quality?
- Are there random failures that aren't reproducible?
- Does quality degrade over long conversations?

### Scenario Testing

Create and run test scenarios:

| Scenario | Input | Expected | Actual | Grade |
|----------|-------|----------|--------|-------|
| Happy path | Normal input | Correct output | ? | A-F |
| Edge case | Unusual input | Graceful handling | ? | A-F |
| Error case | Bad input | Helpful error | ? | A-F |
| Stress case | Large/complex input | Reasonable handling | ? | A-F |
| Adversarial | Tricky/malicious input | Safe response | ? | A-F |

### Evaluation Report

Produce a structured report with:

1. Overall quality grade (A-F)
2. Per-dimension scores with evidence
3. Specific scenario results
4. Priority improvements with recommended Maestro commands

### Evaluation Checklist

- [ ] All 5 dimensions tested with concrete scenarios
- [ ] At least one edge case and one adversarial case tested
- [ ] Results documented in the scenario table
- [ ] Overall grade assigned with justification
- [ ] Improvement actions reference specific Maestro commands

### Recommended Next Step

After evaluation, run `/fortify` to address error behavior gaps, `/refine` for output quality improvements, or `/iterate` to set up continuous quality monitoring.

**NEVER**:

- Evaluate theoretically — run actual scenarios
- Give an A grade unless the workflow handles all scenario types well
- Skip adversarial testing for user-facing workflows
- Evaluate only the happy path

Excerpt, first 3,100 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/sharpdeveye/maestro
git -C maestro checkout 4e163a7a8095

Works in

1. 2026-10-19
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 4e163a7a8095

Questions about Evaluate

• github.com/sharpdeveye/maestro/tree/main/source/skills/evaluate — the audited source at commit 4e163a7a8095 and every finding aboveObserved · 19 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology