gauge

Designs evaluation metrics, benchmarks, and significance tests to validate model improvements.

1|Updated Jun 1, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/kridaydave/My_Skills --skill gauge-kridaydave
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: gauge
Source: https://github.com/kridaydave/My_Skills/tree/main/gauge
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/kridaydave/My_Skills --skill gauge-kridaydave

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Teams often claim model improvements based on single runs, contaminated benchmarks, or misleading metrics, leading to false wins that fail in production. Gauge designs rigorous evaluations that separate real gains from noise, leakage, and metric gaming. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Metric Selection: Chooses metrics that match the task's cost structure (accuracy vs. precision/recall vs. calibration) and names what each metric ignores. - Eval Set & Baseline Design: Builds clean, uncontaminated eval sets with trivial, strong-prior, and current-system baselines, plus contamination and leakage checks. - Significance & Slice Analysis: Requires multi-seed runs with variance reporting and breaks headline scores out by subgroup to catch hidden regressions. - Use Case: A team claims a new model improved 3 points on a public benchmark. Gauge flags likely test-set contamination, demands 5-seed runs with significance testing, and designs a held-out eval with per-slice reporting before the claim ships. ## Quick Start Ask Gauge to evaluate whether your model's benchmark improvement is statistically real and design a proper eval harness with baselines.

Frequently Asked Questions about gauge

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I know if my model improvement is statistically significant?▼

Run both systems across multiple seeds (typically 5 or more) and report mean plus variance for each. A score gap is only real if it exceeds the run-to-run spread; a 3-point gain inside a 5-point variance is noise, not progress.

How do I choose the right evaluation metric for my model?▼

Choose the metric from the decision and its error costs: use precision/recall or AUPRC for imbalanced classes, calibration when probabilities matter, and cost-weighted metrics when error types differ in impact. Always state what the chosen metric ignores.

What is benchmark contamination and how do I detect it?▼

Contamination occurs when test data appears in a model's training set, inflating scores. For public benchmarks and pretrained models, assume contamination until ruled out, and use fresh, held-out, or private eval sets for claims that matter.

How do I set up LLM-as-judge evaluation correctly?▼

Validate the judge against human labels on roughly 150 examples before trusting it, and report the agreement rate. Randomize response order to control position bias, and watch for verbosity bias and self-preference toward its own model family.

Why can an average metric improvement hide a regression?▼

An overall gain can come from the easy majority while a key subgroup or hard slice collapses. Always break headline metrics out by user segments and difficulty bands before declaring a win.

When should I not trust a single benchmark score?▼

Distrust any score from one run of a stochastic system, any public benchmark a pretrained model may have seen, and any result without trivial and strong baselines. A reproducible harness with pinned seeds, prompts, and data versions is required for a falsifiable number.