Initial commit: Flutter 无书应用项目
This commit is contained in:
Developer
170
.trae/skills/planning-with-files/docs/evals.md
Normal file
170
.trae/skills/planning-with-files/docs/evals.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
|
||||
# Benchmark Results — planning-with-files v2.22.0
|
||||
|
||||
Formal evaluation of `planning-with-files` using Anthropic's [skill-creator](https://github.com/anthropics/skills/tree/main/skills/skill-creator) framework. This document records the full methodology, test cases, grading criteria, and results.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why We Did This
|
||||
|
||||
A proactive security audit in March 2026 identified a prompt injection amplification vector in the hook system. The PreToolUse hook re-reads `task_plan.md` before every tool call — the mechanism that makes the skill effective — but declaring `WebFetch` and `WebSearch` in `allowed-tools` created a path for untrusted web content to reach that file and be re-injected into context on every subsequent tool use.
|
||||
|
||||
Hardened in v2.21.0: removed `WebFetch`/`WebSearch` from `allowed-tools`, added explicit Security Boundary guidance to SKILL.md. These evals document the performance baseline and verify zero regression in workflow fidelity.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Environment
|
||||
|
||||
| Item | Value |
|
||||
|------|-------|
|
||||
| Skill version tested | 2.21.0 |
|
||||
| Eval framework | Anthropic skill-creator (github.com/anthropics/skills) |
|
||||
| Executor model | claude-sonnet-4-6 |
|
||||
| Eval date | 2026-03-06 |
|
||||
| Eval repo | Local copy (planning-with-files-eval-test/) |
|
||||
| Subagents | 10 parallel (5 with_skill + 5 without_skill) |
|
||||
| Comparator agents | 3 blind A/B comparisons |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test 1: Evals + Benchmark
|
||||
|
||||
### Skill Category
|
||||
|
||||
`planning-with-files` is an **encoded preference skill** (not capability uplift). Claude can plan without the skill — the skill encodes a specific 3-file workflow pattern. Assertions test workflow fidelity, not general planning ability.
|
||||
|
||||
### Test Cases (5 Evals)
|
||||
|
||||
| ID | Name | Task |
|
||||
|----|------|------|
|
||||
| 1 | todo-cli | Build a Python CLI todo tool with persistence |
|
||||
| 2 | research-frameworks | Research Python testing frameworks, compare 3, recommend one |
|
||||
| 3 | debug-fastapi | Systematically debug a TypeError in FastAPI |
|
||||
| 4 | django-migration | Plan a 50k LOC Django 3.2 → 4.2 migration |
|
||||
| 5 | cicd-pipeline | Create a CI/CD plan for a TypeScript monorepo |
|
||||
|
||||
Each eval ran two subagents simultaneously:
|
||||
- **with_skill**: Read `SKILL.md`, follow it, create planning files in output dir
|
||||
- **without_skill**: Execute same task naturally, no skill or template
|
||||
|
||||
### Assertions per Eval
|
||||
|
||||
All assertions are **objectively verifiable** (file existence, section headers, field counts):
|
||||
|
||||
| Assertion | Evals |
|
||||
|-----------|-------|
|
||||
| `task_plan.md` created in project directory | All 5 |
|
||||
| `findings.md` created in project directory | Evals 1,2,4,5 |
|
||||
| `progress.md` created in project directory | All 5 |
|
||||
| `## Goal` section in task_plan.md | Evals 1,5 |
|
||||
| `### Phase` sections (1+) in task_plan.md | All 5 |
|
||||
| `**Status:**` fields on phases | All 5 |
|
||||
| `## Errors Encountered` section | Evals 1,3 |
|
||||
| `## Current Phase` section | Eval 2 |
|
||||
| Research content in `findings.md` (not task_plan.md) | Eval 2 |
|
||||
| 4+ phases | Eval 4 |
|
||||
| `## Decisions Made` section | Eval 4 |
|
||||
|
||||
**Total assertions: 30**
|
||||
|
||||
### Results
|
||||
|
||||
| Eval | with_skill | without_skill | with_skill files | without_skill files |
|
||||
|------|-----------|---------------|-----------------|---------------------|
|
||||
| 1 todo-cli | 7/7 (100%) | 0/7 (0%) | task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md | plan.md, todo.py, test_todo.py |
|
||||
| 2 research | 6/6 (100%) | 0/6 (0%) | task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md | framework_comparison.md, recommendation.md, research_plan.md |
|
||||
| 3 debug | 5/5 (100%) | 0/5 (0%) | task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md | debug_analysis.txt, routes_users_fixed.py |
|
||||
| 4 django | 5/6 (83.3%) | 0/6 (0%) | task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md | django_migration_plan.md |
|
||||
| 5 cicd | 6/6 (100%) | 2/6 (33.3%) | task_plan.md, findings.md, progress.md | task_plan.md (wrong structure) |
|
||||
|
||||
**Aggregate:**
|
||||
|
||||
| Configuration | Pass Rate | Total Passed |
|
||||
|---------------|-----------|-------------|
|
||||
| with_skill | **96.7%** | 29/30 |
|
||||
| without_skill | 6.7% | 2/30 |
|
||||
| **Delta** | **+90.0 pp** | +27 assertions |
|
||||
|
||||
**Timing and token usage** (from task completion notifications — captured at runtime):
|
||||
|
||||
| Eval | with_skill tokens | with_skill time | without_skill tokens | without_skill time |
|
||||
|------|------------------|-----------------|---------------------|-------------------|
|
||||
| 1 todo-cli | 17,802 | 99.7s | 13,587 | 76.2s |
|
||||
| 2 research | 22,150 | 128.7s | 13,610 | 127.3s |
|
||||
| 3 debug | 17,506 | 93.4s | 11,525 | 66.5s |
|
||||
| 4 django | 24,049 | 147.9s | 12,351 | 141.4s |
|
||||
| 5 cicd | 18,122 | 105.0s | 8,424 | 76.7s |
|
||||
| **Average** | **19,926** | **115s** | **11,899** | **98s** |
|
||||
|
||||
The skill uses ~68% more tokens and ~17% more time on average. The extra cost is the structured output: creating 3 files instead of 1-2, following phase/status discipline, populating decisions and error tables. This is the intended tradeoff — the skill trades speed for structure.
|
||||
|
||||
#### One Assertion Refined (Eval 4)
|
||||
|
||||
Assertion: `**Status:** pending on at least one future phase`
|
||||
Result: not met
|
||||
|
||||
The agent completed all 6 migration phases in a single comprehensive planning session, leaving none pending. The skill was followed correctly — the assertion was overly prescriptive. The skill does not require phases to remain pending; it requires phases to have status fields. Revised for future evals: `task_plan.md contains **Status:** fields` (without specifying value).
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test 2: A/B Blind Comparison
|
||||
|
||||
Three independent comparator agents evaluated pairs of outputs **without knowing which was with_skill vs without_skill**. Assignment was randomized:
|
||||
|
||||
| Eval | A | B | Winner | A score | B score |
|
||||
|------|---|---|--------|---------|---------|
|
||||
| 1 todo-cli | without_skill | with_skill | **B (with_skill)** | 6.0/10 | 10.0/10 |
|
||||
| 3 debug-fastapi | with_skill | without_skill | **A (with_skill)** | 10.0/10 | 6.3/10 |
|
||||
| 4 django-migration | without_skill | with_skill | **B (with_skill)** | 8.0/10 | 10.0/10 |
|
||||
|
||||
**with_skill wins: 3/3 = 100%**
|
||||
|
||||
### Comparator Quotes
|
||||
|
||||
**Eval 1 (todo-cli):** *"Output B satisfies all four structured-workflow expectations precisely... Output A delivered real, runnable code (todo.py + a complete test suite), which is impressive, but it did not fulfill the structural expectations... Output A's strength is real but out of scope for what was being evaluated."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Eval 3 (debug-fastapi):** *"Output A substantially outperforms Output B on every evaluated expectation. Output B is a competent ad-hoc debug response, but it does not satisfy the structured, multi-phase planning format the eval specifies. Output A passes all five expectations; Output B passes one and fails four."*
|
||||
|
||||
**Eval 4 (django-migration):** *"Output B is also substantively strong: it covers pytz/zoneinfo migration (a 4.2-specific item Output A omits entirely), includes 'django-upgrade' as an automated tooling recommendation... The 18,727 output characters vs 12,847 for Output A also reflects greater informational density in B."*
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test 3: Description Optimizer
|
||||
|
||||
**Status: Not run in this cycle**
|
||||
|
||||
Requires `ANTHROPIC_API_KEY` in the eval environment. Per the project's eval standards, a test is only included in results if it can be run end-to-end with verified metrics. Scheduled for the next eval cycle.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary
|
||||
|
||||
| Test | Status | Result |
|
||||
|------|--------|--------|
|
||||
| Evals + Benchmark | ✅ Complete | 96.7% (with_skill) vs 6.7% (without_skill) |
|
||||
| A/B Blind Comparison | ✅ Complete | 3/3 wins (100%) for with_skill |
|
||||
| Description Optimizer | Pending | Scheduled for next eval cycle |
|
||||
|
||||
The skill demonstrably enforces the 3-file planning pattern across diverse task types. Without the skill, agents default to ad-hoc file naming and skip the structured planning workflow entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Reproducing These Results
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Clone the eval framework
|
||||
gh api repos/anthropics/skills/contents/skills/skill-creator ...
|
||||
|
||||
# Set up workspace
|
||||
mkdir -p eval-workspace/iteration-1/{eval-1,eval-2,...}/{with_skill,without_skill}/outputs
|
||||
|
||||
# Run with_skill subagent
|
||||
# Prompt: "Read SKILL.md at path X. Follow it. Execute: <task>. Save to: <output_dir>"
|
||||
|
||||
# Run without_skill subagent
|
||||
# Prompt: "Execute: <task>. Save to: <output_dir>. No skill or template."
|
||||
|
||||
# Grade assertions, produce benchmark.json
|
||||
# See eval-workspace/iteration-1/benchmark.json for full data
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Raw benchmark data: [`eval-workspace/iteration-1/benchmark.json`](../planning-with-files-eval-test/eval-workspace/iteration-1/benchmark.json) (in eval-test copy, not tracked in main repo)
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user