promptfoo-evaluation

daymade/claude-code-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/daymade/claude-code-skills --skill promptfoo-evaluation
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

This skill provides guidance for configuring and running LLM evaluations using Promptfoo, an open-source CLI tool for testing and comparing LLM outputs.

skill.md

Promptfoo Evaluation

Overview

This skill provides guidance for configuring and running LLM evaluations using Promptfoo, an open-source CLI tool for testing and comparing LLM outputs.

Quick Start

# Initialize a new evaluation project
npx promptfoo@latest init

# Run evaluation
npx promptfoo@latest eval

# View results in browser
npx promptfoo@latest view

Configuration Structure

A typical Promptfoo project structure:

project/
├── promptfooconfig.yaml    # Main configuration
├── prompts/
│   ├── system.md           # System prompt
│   └── chat.json           # Chat format prompt
├── tests/
│   └── cases.yaml          # Test cases
└── scripts/
    └── metrics.py          # Custom Python assertions

Core Configuration (promptfooconfig.yaml)

# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://promptfoo.dev/config-schema.json
description: "My LLM Evaluation"

# Prompts to test
prompts:
  - file://prompts/system.md
  - file://prompts/chat.json

# Models to compare
providers:
  - id: anthropic:messages:claude-sonnet-4-6
    label: Claude-Sonnet-4.6
  - id: openai:gpt-4.1
    label: GPT-4.1

# Test cases
tests: file://tests/cases.yaml

# Concurrency control (MUST be under commandLineOptions, NOT top-level)
commandLineOptions:
  maxConcurrency: 2

# Default assertions for all tests
defaultTest:
  assert:
    - type: python
      value: file://scripts/metrics.py:custom_assert
    - type: llm-rubric
      value: |
        Evaluate the response quality on a 0-1 scale.
      threshold: 0.7

# Output path
outputPath: results/eval-results.json

Prompt Formats

Text Prompt (system.md)

You are a helpful assistant.

Task: {{task}}
Context: {{context}}

Chat Format (chat.json)

[
  {"role": "system", "content": "{{system_prompt}}"},
  {"role": "user", "content": "{{user_input}}"}
]

Few-Shot Pattern

Embed examples directly in prompt or use chat format with assistant messages:

[
  {"role": "system", "content": "{{system_prompt}}"},
  {"role": "user", "content": "Example input: {{example_input}}"},
  {"role": "assistant", "content": "{{example_output}}"},
  {"role": "user", "content": "Now process: {{actual_input}}"}
]

Test Cases (tests/cases.yaml)

- description: "Test case 1"
  vars:
    system_prompt: file://prompts/system.md
    user_input: "Hello world"
    # Load content from files
    context: file://data/context.txt
  assert:
    - type: contains
      value: "expected text"
    - type: python
      value: file://scripts/metrics.py:custom_check
      threshold: 0.8

Python Custom Assertions

Create a Python file for custom assertions (e.g., scripts/metrics.py):

def get_assert(output: str, context: dict) -> dict:
    """Default assertion function."""
    vars_dict = context.get('vars', {})

    # Access test variables
    expected = vars_dict.get('expected', '')

    # Return result
    return {
        "pass": expected in output,
        "score": 0.8,
        "reason": "Contains expected content",
        "named_scores": {"relevance": 0.9}
    }

def custom_check(output: str, context: dict) -> dict:
    """Custom named assertion."""
    word_count = len(output.split())
    passed = 100 <= word_count <= 500

    return {
        "pass": passed,
        "score": min(1.0, word_count / 300),
        "reason": f"Word count: {word_count}"
    }

Key points:

  • Default function name is get_assert
  • Specify function with file://path.py:function_name
  • Return bool, float (score), or dict with pass/score/reason
  • Access variables via context['vars']

LLM-as-Judge (llm-rubric)

assert:
  - type: llm-rubric
    value: |
      Evaluate the response based on:
      1. Accuracy of information
      2. Clarity of explanation
      3. Completeness

      Score 0.0-1.0 where 0.7+ is passing.
    threshold: 0.7
    provider: openai:gpt-4.1  # Optional: override grader model

When using a relay/proxy API, each llm-rubric assertion needs its own provider config with apiBaseUrl. Otherwise the grader falls back to the default Anthropic/OpenAI endpoint and gets 401 errors:

assert:
  - type: llm-rubric
    value: |
      Evaluate quality on a 0-1 scale.
    threshold: 0.7
    provider:
      id: anthropic:messages:claude-sonnet-4-6
      config:
        apiBaseUrl: https://your-relay.example.com/api

Best practices:

  • Provide clear scoring criteria
  • Use threshold to set minimum passing score
  • Default grader uses available API keys (OpenAI → Anthropic → Google)
  • When using relay/proxy: every llm-rubric must have its own provider with apiBaseUrl — the main provider's apiBaseUrl is NOT inherited

Common Assertion Types

Type Usage Example
contains Check substring value: "hello"
icontains Case-insensitive value: "HELLO"
equals Exact match value: "42"
regex Pattern match value: "\\d{4}"
python Custom logic value: file://script.py
llm-rubric LLM grading value: "Is professional"
latency Response time threshold: 1000

File References

All file:// paths are resolved relative to promptfooconfig.yaml location (NOT the YAML file containing the reference). This is a common gotcha when tests: references a separate YAML file — the file:// paths inside that test file still resolve from the config root.

# Load file content as variable
vars:
  content: file://data/input.txt
how to use promptfoo-evaluation

How to use promptfoo-evaluation on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add promptfoo-evaluation
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/daymade/claude-code-skills --skill promptfoo-evaluation

The skills CLI fetches promptfoo-evaluation from GitHub repository daymade/claude-code-skills and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/promptfoo-evaluation

Reload or restart Cursor to activate promptfoo-evaluation. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /promptfoo-evaluation) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.657 reviews
  • Fatima Gonzalez· Dec 28, 2024

    promptfoo-evaluation fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Alexander Abebe· Dec 28, 2024

    We added promptfoo-evaluation from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Chen Huang· Dec 12, 2024

    promptfoo-evaluation has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.

  • Noah Torres· Dec 4, 2024

    Useful defaults in promptfoo-evaluation — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Ira Singh· Nov 23, 2024

    I recommend promptfoo-evaluation for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Zaid Ghosh· Nov 19, 2024

    We added promptfoo-evaluation from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Li Farah· Nov 19, 2024

    promptfoo-evaluation fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Amelia Smith· Nov 3, 2024

    promptfoo-evaluation reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Maya Zhang· Oct 22, 2024

    I recommend promptfoo-evaluation for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Ishan Bhatia· Oct 14, 2024

    promptfoo-evaluation reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

showing 1-10 of 57

1 / 6