prompt-evaluation-claude-code

name: prompt-evaluation-claude-code description: > Eval-driven prompt refinement that runs entirely inside Claude Code via the Agent/Task tool — no Python, no SDK, no API key. Each candidate run and each judge call executes in an isolated subagent with a fresh context window, so samples are independently graded and the main session stays focused on synthesis and iteration. Trivially parallel: spawn N candidate + M judge subagents in one assistant message. Invoke when the user wants to evaluate, A/B test, regress-test, or iterate on a prompt directly inside Claude Code, especially when they reference subagents, the Task/Agent tool, or "test this prompt without writing code". Phrases like "use Claude Code to evaluate this prompt", "spawn subagents to test", "parallel-test these variants", "A/B these prompts in Claude Code", "grade this rubric with subagents", or "iterate this prompt with fresh contexts" qualify. Pairs with the broader prompt-evaluation skill for shared dataset-design and binary-judge methodology. license: MIT metadata: author: "Ikuma Yamashita" version: "1.2.0"

Prompt Evaluation — Claude Code

This skill is a router and workflow. It teaches how to run a prompt-evaluation loop using Claude Code's own subagent capability — no external API calls, no Python, no promptfoo. Read the references on demand.

The core idea

Claude Code's Agent/Task tool spawns a subagent with a fresh context window. The subagent sees only the prompt you pass it; it inherits nothing from the main conversation. When the subagent finishes, it returns a single message to the caller and its working context is discarded.

For prompt evaluation, this gives you three properties for free that are otherwise hard to engineer:

1. Isolation. Each test sample runs in its own context, so the main session's accumulated context cannot leak into the run. The same holds for judges: each verdict is independent of the others.
2. Parallelism. Multiple Agent calls in one assistant message run concurrently. 20 evals finish in roughly the wall time of 1.
3. Synthesis stays in the main session. Subagent outputs land in files; the main session reads only verdicts and failure patterns. The main session's context is spent on iteration ("what should v3 of this prompt change?"), not on executing the eval.

This is what the existing prompt-evaluation skill achieves with async messages.create() calls. This skill achieves it with Agent calls instead — same shape, no SDK.

When this skill applies (vs. the SDK-based one)

The two skills share methodology — binary judges, position-swap for pairwise, calibration against human labels, dataset stratified by feature×scenario×persona, "look at data first". This skill inherits all of that; see references/shared_methodology.md for the cross-skill pointers.

What you (Claude Code) actually do

For each invocation you produce four kinds of artifact in the user's working directory:

<workspace>/
├── eval-set-v1.jsonl                   ← the test inputs (versioned)
├── eval-set-v2.jsonl                   ← bumped when cases change
├── prompt-candidates/
│   ├── candidate-v1.md                 ← the prompt under test
│   └── candidate-v2.md                 ← the proposed revision
├── iteration-1/
│   ├── eval-1/
│   │   ├── candidate-v1.txt            ← raw output from subagent
│   │   ├── candidate-v2.txt
│   │   ├── judge-v1.json               ← {verdict, reasoning}
│   │   └── judge-v2.json
│   ├── ...
│   └── results.md                      ← stamps eval-set version,
│                                         pass rate, failure modes,
│                                         cumulative combined record
└── iteration-2/...                     ← after one refinement loop

Two orthogonal version axes — prompt (candidate-vX.md) and eval set (eval-set-vY.jsonl) — are tracked separately so that runs are unambiguous: every iteration is "candidate-vX ran against eval-set-vY". See references/eval_set.md → Versioning for the bump-don't-mutate rule and the cumulative-record pattern in references/iteration_loop.md.

You orchestrate the loop. Subagents do the per-sample work. Files are the interface.

The loop

1. Capture the prompt under test and its job. Exact prompt string, what an input looks like, what a correct output looks like. If vague, ask for one example input + the user's ideal output — that becomes the seed golden pair.

2. Build (or accept) the eval set. Hand-curate 10–30 entries from real failures if possible, generate synthetically only as a complement. Store as JSONL. See references/eval_set.md.

3. Pick a grading approach.

   • Reference match when the criterion is "answer equals X" (multi-label set match, regex, etc.) → no judge subagent needed; the main session compares.
   • Binary judge for open-ended outputs → spawn one judge subagent per sample. Default to binary; use anchored numeric only when you genuinely need granularity. See references/judge_subagents.md.
   • Pairwise with position swap when comparing two variants head-to-head → spawn two judge subagents per sample (positions reversed), agree-or-tie. See references/judge_subagents.md.

4. Spawn the run. One assistant message, N+M parallel Agent calls (N candidate subagents, M judge subagents — or N candidates first, then M judges in a second turn if the judges need outputs to be on disk first). See references/candidate_subagents.md and references/parallel_execution.md.

5. Aggregate, surface failures, propose a revision. Read judge-*.json from each eval-*/. Compute pass rate. List failed inputs with one-line reasoning. Cluster the failures into 2–4 themes. Propose a single targeted edit to the prompt. Write iteration-N/results.md stamped with the eval-set version used and (after iteration 2) a cumulative combined record showing which cases the current shipping candidate has passed across iterations. Ask the user to greenlight candidate-v(N+1).md, then re-run on the same eval-set version.

That is the whole loop. Subsequent sections drill into the mechanics.

Spawning candidate subagents

A candidate subagent simulates one execution of the prompt under test on one eval input. The pattern:

Agent({
  description: "Run candidate v1 on eval-3",
  subagent_type: "general-purpose",
  prompt: """
    You are a subject under test. The instructions below are the
    only instructions you should follow. Do not consult any tools
    other than Write. Do not search the web. Do not call other
    agents. Do not 'help' beyond what the instructions say.

    <prompt_under_test>
    {paste candidate prompt verbatim}
    </prompt_under_test>

    The user message you are responding to is:

    <user_message>
    {paste eval input}
    </user_message>

    Write your final answer — and nothing else — to:
    {absolute path}/iteration-1/eval-3/candidate-v1.txt
    using the Write tool. Then return the single word: DONE
  """
})

Three load-bearing pieces:

1. "Write to file X, then return DONE." Subagents summarize their work by default. Without an explicit file-output contract, the response message contains a paraphrase of the answer, not the answer itself. File-based output is lossless; message-based output is not.
2. "Do not consult any tools other than Write." General-purpose subagents have Bash, Read, Web, etc. If you let them roam, the eval is no longer testing the prompt — it's testing the prompt plus whatever capabilities the subagent decided to use.
3. Verbatim <prompt_under_test> and <user_message> tags. This is the closest analog to a system+user API call you can get without leaving Claude Code.

The full template is at assets/candidate_subagent.template.md. Critical pitfalls live at references/pitfalls.md.

Spawning judge subagents

A judge subagent grades one candidate output against one criterion. The pattern is the same shape as a candidate run — file-based output, no tools except Write, fresh context.

Defaults (cross-referenced to prompt-evaluation):

• Binary verdict (correct / incorrect). Anthropic, Hamel, Yan, Arize, Databricks all converge on this. Likert scales aren't actionable.
• Reasoning before verdict. Always. "Reason then collapse to a label" is the canonical shape. Anthropic Cookbook uses <thinking> then <correctness>.
• One isolated judge per criterion when you have ≥2 criteria. Compound rubrics produce halo effects (Anthropic guidance).
• For pairwise: always run with positions reversed and gate on agreement. Without the swap, Claude has a 75 % first-position bias.
• Calibrate against your own labels before trusting the judge. Target Cohen's κ ≥ 0.6. See references/judge_subagents.md.

The judge subagent writes a JSON file:

{
  "verdict": "correct",
  "reasoning": "The output identifies both Service Outage and Feature Request, matching the golden set."
}

Template at assets/judge_binary_subagent.template.md; pairwise variant at assets/judge_pairwise_subagent.template.md.

Parallel execution

If you have N eval inputs, spawn N candidate subagents in the same assistant message. They run concurrently. Then, in the next turn, spawn N judge subagents (also in one message). Wall time is roughly 2× the slowest sample, not N× the average.

Two practical caveats:

• Don't exceed model rate limits. Fan-out of ~15 in a single message is field-confirmed reliable on standard subscriptions; bump above that cautiously and watch for 429s inside subagents. If your eval set is 30 inputs, two batches of 15 is the typical shape. See references/parallel_execution.md for the full table.
• Don't fan out beyond your patience for failures. If a candidate prompt has a fundamental issue, all 30 subagents will hit it. Run 3–5 first, eyeball the outputs, then fan out.

See references/parallel_execution.md for the batching pattern.

Iteration

The synthesis pass is where this skill earns its keep. You have the failures, the rubric, the pass rates, and (after the second iteration) two passes' worth of comparison. The main session should:

1. Read failed candidate-*.txt outputs in full. Don't skim.
2. Cluster failures by mode (Hamel's "open coding"). Examples:
   • "Misclassifies multi-label inputs as single-label"
   • "Refuses on ambiguous inputs the prompt doesn't authorize it to refuse on"
   • "Hallucinates a category not in the schema"
3. Propose one targeted edit per dominant mode. Don't bundle five edits in one revision — you won't know which one caused the change. Save as prompt-candidates/candidate-v2.md.
4. Re-run on the same eval set. Compare pass rates per failure mode, not just overall. Sometimes you fix one mode and regress another.

When the user reports "v2 doesn't look better, just different", you almost certainly traded one failure mode for another. Look at the per-mode breakdown, not the headline number. See references/iteration_loop.md.

Pitfalls (read these before your first run)

The subagent-as-eval-runner pattern has failure modes that messages.create() does not. The most common:

1. Subagent paraphrases instead of pasting. Mitigation: "Write to file X, return DONE." Always.
2. Subagent uses tools that distort the eval. Mitigation: "Do not consult any tools other than Write."
3. Subagent applies Claude Code's safety/helpfulness on top of the prompt under test. Mitigation: explicit "subject under test" framing. Be aware that this is an approximation of a bare API call, not a perfect simulation. If exact API semantics matter, port to the SDK-based prompt-evaluation skill.
4. Judge subagent leaks reasoning into the verdict. Mitigation: require structured output (JSON file) with verdict as an enum.
5. Position bias in pairwise. Mitigation: always swap, always gate on agreement.
6. Self-enhancement when the judge model is the same family as the candidate. Mitigation: if budget allows, use a different model for the judge — e.g. Haiku as judge for an Opus candidate, or vice versa.

Full list with mitigations at references/pitfalls.md.

What this skill is not

• Not a replacement for a production-grade regression suite. When the prompt ships, codify the eval in the SDK or promptfoo so it runs in CI without a human at the keyboard. Use this skill for the exploratory loop and then port.
• Not a substitute for looking at the data. Pass rate on a small synthetic eval set is a vibes-with-extra-steps. The number is only meaningful if the eval set is sourced from real failures (Hamel; Anthropic).
• Not a free pass on calibration. A judge subagent that agrees with itself on every sample but disagrees with the user on 40 % of them isn't a judge — it's noise. Spend a few minutes on a κ check before trusting the verdicts.

References