mllm-judge

Scores AI-generated images and videos against rubric criteria using vision models as judges.

5|2|Updated Jul 12, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/LongLeo287/seosona-flow --skill mllm-judge-longleo287
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: mllm-judge
Source: https://github.com/LongLeo287/seosona-flow/tree/main/.claude/skills/mllm-judge
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/LongLeo287/seosona-flow --skill mllm-judge-longleo287

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? AI image and video generation pipelines produce inconsistent output, and manually reviewing every result does not scale. This Skill automates quality gating by having a vision model (MLLM) act as a judge, scoring outputs against a rubric instead of relying on rigid metrics like FVD or CLIP that diverge from human perception. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Cheap Pre-Filter: Rejects obviously broken outputs (black frames, blur, zero-byte files, duplicates, frozen video) with lightweight JavaScript checks before spending any vision-model calls. - Rubric-Based Scoring: Scores each output 0-5 on prompt adherence, motion and temporal consistency, aesthetics, and physical artifacts, with a one-line justification per axis. - Verdict and Best-of-N: Produces ACCEPT/REJECT decisions against a configurable threshold, suggests one concrete fix for regeneration, and ranks multiple candidates to pick the best. - Use Case: In a batch pipeline generating 30 product images, automatically reject the blurry or off-prompt ones, get a specific prompt fix for each rejection, and only pass clean results to download. ## Quick Start Evaluate this generated image against the brief using the mllm-judge rubric and give me an accept or reject verdict with scores.

Frequently Asked Questions about mllm-judge

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I automatically quality-check AI-generated images?▼

Use an MLLM-as-judge approach: first run cheap pre-filters to reject black frames, blur, and corrupt files, then send surviving images to a vision model with a rubric covering prompt adherence, aesthetics, and artifacts. The model scores each axis 0-5 and returns an accept or reject verdict.

Why use a vision model judge instead of FVD or CLIP metrics?▼

Hard metrics like FVD and CLIP diverge from human perception of quality. An MLLM judge scores against explicit criteria with evidence, following the VideoGen-Eval approach, so verdicts align better with how people actually judge generated content.

How do I pick the best result from multiple AI generations?▼

Score every candidate with the same rubric, then select the highest total score (best-of-N). The judge returns a comparison table with per-axis scores so the selection is auditable rather than arbitrary.

Can this evaluate AI-generated video clips, not just images?▼

Yes. For clips it adds a motion and temporal axis checking smoothness, flicker, and frame-to-frame consistency, plus pre-filters for zero-frame, frozen, or wrong-length videos before invoking the model.

What are the limitations of MLLM-based quality scoring?▼

Specialized defects like garbled text or character drift are better routed to dedicated checks (text-in-image or character-consistency skills) rather than scored generically. Borderline scores default to reject with a note on what needs closer inspection.