/evaluation-framework

name: evaluation-framework
description: Provides weighted scoring, rubrics, and decision-threshold patterns. Use when designing quality gates, evaluation systems, or decision frameworks.
alwaysApply: false
category: infrastructure
tags:
- evaluation
- scoring
- decision-making
- metrics
- quality
dependencies: []
provides:
  infrastructure:
  - weighted-scoring
  - threshold-decisions
  - evaluation-patterns
  patterns:
  - criteria-definition
  - scoring-methodology
  - decision-logic
usage_patterns:
- quality-evaluation
- scoring-systems
- decision-frameworks
- rubric-design
complexity: beginner
estimated_tokens: 550
progressive_loading: true
modules:
- modules/scoring-patterns.md
- modules/decision-thresholds.md
- modules/evaluation-rubric.md
- modules/multi-metric-evaluation-methodology.md
- modules/quality-metrics.md

Evaluation Framework

Overview

A generic framework for weighted scoring and threshold-based decision making. Provides reusable patterns for evaluating any artifact against configurable criteria with consistent scoring methodology.

This framework abstracts the common pattern of: define criteria → assign weights → score against criteria → apply thresholds → make decisions.

When To Use

• Implementing quality gates or evaluation rubrics
• Building scoring systems for artifacts, proposals, or submissions
• Need consistent evaluation methodology across different domains
• Want threshold-based automated decision making
• Creating assessment tools with weighted criteria

When NOT To Use

• Simple pass/fail without scoring needs

Core Pattern

1. Define Criteria

criteria:
  - name: criterion_name
    weight: 0.30          # 30% of total score
    description: What this measures
    scoring_guide:
      90-100: Exceptional
      70-89: Strong
      50-69: Acceptable
      30-49: Weak
      0-29: Poor

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

2. Score Each Criterion

scores = {
    "criterion_1": 85,  # Out of 100
    "criterion_2": 92,
    "criterion_3": 78,
}

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

3. Calculate Weighted Total

total = sum(score * weights[criterion] for criterion, score in scores.items())
# Example: (85 × 0.30) + (92 × 0.40) + (78 × 0.30) = 85.5

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

4. Apply Decision Thresholds

thresholds:
  80-100: Accept with priority
  60-79: Accept with conditions
  40-59: Review required
  20-39: Reject with feedback
  0-19: Reject

A score that gates a decision becomes the target. Agent output drifts from a visible proxy as the work grows, and standard maintainability metrics explain little of why agent code is harder to extend (`docs/knowledge-corpus/decoherence.md`). Pair each gating score with one check the score does not include: a held-out test, a run on real input, or a reviewer reading the output. **Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

Quick Start

Define Your Evaluation

1. **Identify criteria**: What aspects matter for your domain? 2. **Assign weights**: Which criteria are most important? (sum to 1.0) 3. **Create scoring guides**: What does each score range mean? 4. **Set thresholds**: What total scores trigger which decisions?

Example: Code Review Evaluation

criteria:
  correctness: {weight: 0.40, description: Does code work as intended?}
  maintainability: {weight: 0.25, description: Is it readable?}
  performance: {weight: 0.20, description: Meets performance needs?}
  testing: {weight: 0.15, description: Tests detailed?}

thresholds:
  85-100: Approve immediately
  70-84: Approve with minor feedback
  50-69: Request changes
  0-49: Reject, major issues

**Verification:** Run `pytest -v` to verify tests pass.

Evaluation Workflow

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.
1. Review artifact against each criterion
2. Assign 0-100 score for each criterion
3. Calculate: total = Σ(score × weight)
4. Compare total to thresholds
5. Take action based on threshold range

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

Common Use Cases

**Quality Gates**: Code review, PR approval, release readiness **Content Evaluation**: Document quality, knowledge intake, skill assessment **Resource Allocation**: Backlog prioritization, investment decisions, triage

Integration Pattern

# In your skill's frontmatter
dependencies: [leyline:evaluation-framework]

**Verification:** Run the command with `--help` flag to verify availability.

Then customize the framework for your domain:

• Define domain-specific criteria
• Set appropriate weights for your context
• Establish meaningful thresholds
• Document what each score range means

Detailed Resources

• **Scoring Patterns**: See `modules/scoring-patterns.md` for detailed methodology
• **Decision Thresholds**: See `modules/decision-thresholds.md` for threshold design

Exit Criteria

• [ ] Criteria defined with clear descriptions
• [ ] Weights assigned and sum to 1.0
• [ ] Scoring guides documented for each criterion
• [ ] Thresholds mapped to specific actions
• [ ] Each gating score names its check outside the score
• [ ] Evaluation process documented and reproducible