Catalog
affaan-m/agent-eval

affaan-m

agent-eval

Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression.

NewUpdated Sep 9, 2026

Agent Eval Skill

A lightweight CLI tool for comparing coding agents head-to-head on reproducible tasks. Every "which coding agent is best?" comparison runs on vibes — this tool systematizes it.

When to Activate

  • Comparing coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on your own codebase
  • Measuring agent performance before adopting a new tool or model
  • Running regression checks when an agent updates its model or tooling
  • Producing data-backed agent selection decisions for a team

Installation

Note: Install agent-eval from its repository after reviewing the source.

Core Concepts

YAML Task Definitions

Define tasks declaratively. Each task specifies what to do, which files to touch, and how to judge success:

name: add-retry-logic
description: Add exponential backoff retry to the HTTP client
repo: ./my-project
files:
  - src/http_client.py
prompt: |
  Add retry logic with exponential backoff to all HTTP requests.
  Max 3 retries. Initial delay 1s, max delay 30s.
judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/test_http_client.py -v
  - type: grep
    pattern: "exponential_backoff|retry"
    files: src/http_client.py
commit: "abc1234"  # pin to specific commit for reproducibility

Git Worktree Isolation

Each agent run gets its own git worktree — no Docker required. This provides reproducibility isolation so agents cannot interfere with each other or corrupt the base repo.

Metrics Collected

Metric What It Measures
Pass rate Did the agent produce code that passes the judge?
Cost API spend per task (when available)
Time Wall-clock seconds to completion
Consistency Pass rate across repeated runs (e.g., 3/3 = 100%)

Workflow

1. Define Tasks

Create a tasks/ directory with YAML files, one per task:

mkdir tasks
# Write task definitions (see template above)

2. Run Agents

Execute agents against your tasks:

agent-eval run --task tasks/add-retry-logic.yaml --agent claude-code --agent aider --runs 3

Each run:

  1. Creates a fresh git worktree from the specified commit
  2. Hands the prompt to the agent
  3. Runs the judge criteria
  4. Records pass/fail, cost, and time

3. Compare Results

Generate a comparison report:

agent-eval report --format table
Task: add-retry-logic (3 runs each)
┌──────────────┬───────────┬────────┬────────┬─────────────┐
│ Agent        │ Pass Rate │ Cost   │ Time   │ Consistency │
├──────────────┼───────────┼────────┼────────┼─────────────┤
│ claude-code  │ 3/3       │ $0.12  │ 45s    │ 100%        │
│ aider        │ 2/3       │ $0.08  │ 38s    │  67%        │
└──────────────┴───────────┴────────┴────────┴─────────────┘

Judge Types

Code-Based (deterministic)

judge:
  - type: pytest
    command: pytest tests/ -v
  - type: command
    command: npm run build

Pattern-Based

judge:
  - type: grep
    pattern: "class.*Retry"
    files: src/**/*.py

Model-Based (LLM-as-judge)

judge:
  - type: llm
    prompt: |
      Does this implementation correctly handle exponential backoff?
      Check for: max retries, increasing delays, jitter.

Best Practices

  • Start with 3-5 tasks that represent your real workload, not toy examples
  • Run at least 3 trials per agent to capture variance — agents are non-deterministic
  • Pin the commit in your task YAML so results are reproducible across days/weeks
  • Include at least one deterministic judge (tests, build) per task — LLM judges add noise
  • Track cost alongside pass rate — a 95% agent at 10x the cost may not be the right choice
  • Version your task definitions — they are test fixtures, treat them as code
Files1
1 files · 1.0 KB

Select a file to preview

Overall Score

78/100

Grade

B

Good

Grades are signals, not a certification. Always review a skill yourself before use.

Safety

82

Quality

76

Clarity

79

Completeness

72

Summary

A lightweight CLI tool for head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on reproducible custom tasks. It collects pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics by defining YAML-based task definitions, running agents in isolated git worktrees, and aggregating results into structured reports for data-backed agent selection.

Detected Capabilities

file writebash executiongit worktree creationYAML parsingtest executiongrep pattern matchingreport generationapi cost tracking

Trigger Keywords

Phrases that agents use to match this skill to user intent.

compare coding agentsagent performance benchmarkagent selection decisionmeasure agent consistencyregression test agentsagent cost analysiswhich coding agent best

Referenced Domains

External domains referenced in skill content, detected by static analysis.

github.com

Use Cases

  • Compare multiple coding agents on your own codebase to identify the best performer
  • Measure agent performance before adopting a new tool or updating to a newer model
  • Run regression checks when an agent updates its model, tooling, or configuration to detect performance regressions
  • Produce data-backed agent selection decisions for team adoption with quantified metrics
  • Benchmark agent consistency across multiple runs on the same tasks to identify reliability patterns

Quality Notes

  • Clear scope definition: skill is focused on agent evaluation, not general-purpose coding
  • Well-structured workflow documented with three distinct phases (Define, Run, Compare)
  • Judge types clearly explained with examples for deterministic, pattern-based, and LLM-based evaluation
  • Best practices section provides practical guidance on task design (3-5 tasks, 3+ trials, pin commits, mix judge types)
  • Git worktree isolation explicitly documented as a reproducibility and safety mechanism
  • Example YAML task definition is concrete and includes all necessary fields
  • Metric definitions are clear and well-motivated
  • Limitations not explicitly stated: no guidance on handling agent failures, timeouts, or network errors
  • No documentation on how cost tracking works or which agents are supported
  • Missing details on LLM judge implementation or required credentials for model-based judges
Model: claude-haiku-4-5-20251001Analyzed: Sep 9, 2026

Reviews

Add this skill to your library to leave a review.

No reviews yet

Be the first to share your experience.

Version History

  1. v2.0

    Contract changed: description

    ✦ AIExpands activation guidance: skill now explicitly targets agent selection and measured setup changes.

    triggeringlicense2026-09-09

    LATEST
  2. v1.2

    Content updated

    ✦ AINo behavioral changes detected.

    2026-07-14

    View This Version
  3. v1.1

    Content updated

    ✦ AIAdds LICENSE file.

    2026-04-20

    View This Version
  4. v1.0

    2026-04-12

    View This VersionInitial version

Use affaan-m/agent-eval in your dev environment

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...