Improve Skill Quality

Turn a failing or unconvincing evaluation into a targeted fix. The single most common mistake in this repo is rewriting skill prose in response to a verdict whose real cause was the eval, the fixtures, or the harness. Classify first, then fix.

When to Use

• An evaluation verdict is a regression, underpowered, or "no credible improvement".
• A skill wins in the isolated arm but not in the plugin arm, or is reported "not activated".
• /evaluate reports "Evaluation ran but produced no results".
• A skill scores well but costs too much (tokens, turns, wall time, plugin menu budget).
• Deciding whether to strengthen or retire a persistently weak skill.

When Not to Use

• Creating a new skill from scratch — use create-skill.
• Creating a new eval.yaml from scratch — use create-skill-test.
• Changing the harness itself (eng/skill-validator, eng/vally-adapter, evaluation*.yml).

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
Verdict evidence	Yes	The /evaluate PR comment, or results.json from the run artifacts
Losing trial transcripts	Yes for content fixes	Baseline vs. skilled output plus the judge's stated reason
W/T/L record and trial count	Yes	Distinguishes a real regression from an underpowered eval
Activation status per arm	Yes	Isolated and plugin activation are different failures

Workflow

Step 1: Get the evidence before forming a hypothesis

Read InvestigatingResults.md for how to download artifacts and read results.json. Extract, per failing stimulus:

• win / tie / loss record and total trials (trials = stimuli × runs)
• activation status in the isolated and plugin arms, separately
• the judge's verbatim reason on each losing trial
• whether any trial errored, timed out, or produced empty output

Do not change skill content until you can quote a losing trial and the judge's reason for it. For the other cause classes the evidence is different: harness failures are diagnosed from the job log and the spec, and power problems from the trial record — neither has a losing trial to quote, and demanding one is what sends people rewriting prose instead.

Step 2: Classify the failure

Work down this table and stop at the first row that matches. Rows are ordered by how often the symptom has been misdiagnosed as a skill-content problem — the fixture row is first because a fixture failure also presents as a setup or reliability failure and gets misfiled as one.

Symptom	Real cause class	Go to
A fixture does not build, is untracked by git, breaks for the wrong reason, or contradicts itself	Fixture	Step 4
No results.json, "produced no results", or the spec never loaded	Harness / spec-load	Step 3
Trials errored, timed out, or returned empty output	Reliability	Step 3
Trajectories unmatched, a trial errored, or the summary disagrees — verdict reported inconclusive	Reliability (not power)	Step 3
Positive record (e.g. 16W/8T/1L), comparison conclusive, verdict still not a pass	Statistical power	Step 5
Skilled arm equals baseline arm by construction	Eval design	Step 6
Activated and lost on quality, judge names a concrete defect	Skill content	Step 7
Activated in isolation, not in plugin	Activation / routing	Step 8
Not activated in either arm	Frontmatter description	Step 8
Wins but costs far more than baseline	Scope and cost	Step 7

A verdict is only a measured result when the comparison was conclusive: adapt.mjs requires zero errored trials, zero unmatched trajectories, and an agreeing summary before it will report a pass or a regression. Confirm that before reading a record as a power problem.

Step 3: Rule out harness and reliability causes

See references/eval-triage.md for the full catalogue. The recurring ones:

• A spec declaring both config: and defaults: is rejected by vally, the job still exits 0, and the PR comment blames "transient infrastructure". Merge them into one defaults: block.
• An errored trial is not automatically a fixture problem — judge-side auth and session.idle failures look identical from the verdict and need harness fixes, not SDK pins.
• expect_tools: [bash] on an advisory question forces a restore or build and turns an answer into a timeout with no quality gain.
• Genuine code-generation stimuli need roughly 360s; a timeout yields empty output, which fails every grader and hides the real quality signal.
• Unmatched trajectories, an errored trial, or a summary that disagrees make the comparison inconclusive: the remaining matched trials are biased, so the record is not a measured null and must not be read as a power or content problem.

Step 4: Verify the fixtures before touching the skill

Run python eng/eval-quality/check_eval_quality.py — it blocks ten defect classes that each already cost a real result here. Then confirm by hand:

• every fixture behaves as its stimulus assumes — a fixture meant to be healthy builds, and one meant to be broken fails for the exact reason the stimulus is about and no other;
• every referenced fixture is in the git index (git ls-files), not merely on disk — .gitignore has silently swallowed committed coverage fixtures;
• a fixture never states the same fact in two places that disagree — a Cobertura report whose declared line-rate, summary totals and <line> elements differ is the canonical case — or the two arms legitimately read different truths.

Step 5: Check whether the eval could ever have passed

The gate has two independent bars, and confusing them is the usual misdiagnosis:

1. Counted trials ≥ 5 (trials = stimuli × runs). Below that the verdict is reported underpowered — never a pass, never a regression.
2. The sign test must reach p ≤ 0.05 over the discordant (non-tie) trials. Ties are not discarded silently; they hold the discordant count down.

discordant trials	records that pass	p
≤ 4	none, however good the skill	≥ 0.0625
5–7	zero losses only (5W/0L)	0.031
8	one loss survivable (7W/1L)	0.035

So at exactly 5 counted trials a single tie is fatal — it leaves 4 discordant. At 6 counted trials one tie is survivable (5W/1T/0L); at 7, up to two are (5W/2T/0L). A loss is not.

So a positive record with a failing verdict is a power problem, not a content problem. Fix it by adding discriminating stimuli (cross-task evidence) rather than raising runs (repetition only) — except where each stimulus drives an expensive pipeline. Record the reasoning in a comment above defaults:, as tests/dotnet-test/grade-tests/eval.yaml does.

Step 6: Check whether the two arms differ at all

An eval that compares the skill against itself measures judge noise:

• A dormancy guard (expect_activation: false) must not also set constraints.reject_skills. That makes the skilled arm skill-free, i.e. identical to baseline. Across four evals the same guard scored −0.4, +0.4, +0.4 and 0, twice costing a skill its pass.
• A skill with disable-model-invocation: true cannot self-activate, so an eval graded on activation compares two identical arms. Cover it through a consumer skill, or grade the answer content instead, as tests/dotnet-test/filter-syntax/eval.yaml and tests/dotnet-test/platform-detection/eval.yaml do.
• A grader whose config is missing its required key enforces nothing, so the stimulus has one fewer assertion than it appears to.

Step 7: Fix skill content against the losing trial

Only now change the skill. Apply the patterns in references/writing-for-baseline-delta.md; the ones that most often flip a loss:

• Replace reference prose the model already knows with decisions it would otherwise get wrong.
• Add stop-conditions so a strong skill does not over-apply — but do not over-correct into answering more narrowly than the baseline did.
• Scale output structure to input size; a dashboard for an 8-test suite loses to a direct answer.
• Require truthful validation reporting; claiming "Build succeeded" after a failed restore is an automatic loss.
• Verify load-bearing API claims by compiling or probing, not by reading source.
• For cost regressions, gate rare or expensive paths behind references/ reads and size any orchestration to the user's scope.

Step 8: Fix activation

Activation failures are frontmatter and routing failures, not body failures. See references/eval-triage.md. Summary:

Failure	Fix
Not activated in any arm	Put the user's own words in description: symptoms, error codes, artifact names, quoted requests
A sibling skill wins the prompt	Claim the exact ambiguous words in description, and add matching exclusions on both siblings
Model answers with no skill at all	Raise the stakes in the description, de-crowd the plugin menu, verify with the plugin arm
Boundary excludes real scenarios	Re-read every "do not use for" clause against every eval prompt and real workflow phase
Description at the 1,024-char ceiling	Cut restated body content, not trigger phrases; check the plugin menu budget too

Step 9: Re-validate

dotnet run --project eng/skill-validator/src/SkillValidator.csproj -- check --plugin ./plugins/<plugin>
python eng/eval-quality/check_eval_quality.py
./eng/run-skill-evals.sh <plugin> <skill>

Then request the official run by submitting a PR review containing /evaluate (Files changed → Review changes), which binds the run to the reviewed commit. Before declaring a regression on the result, confirm the skill payload actually changed — reruns on byte-identical content have shifted 7W/2T/2L to 4W/5T/2L.

Validation

• For a content fix, a losing trial and the judge's stated reason are quoted in the PR description.
• The failure was classified before any content was edited.
• check_eval_quality.py and skill-validator check both pass.
• Trial count clears the power bar for the observed tie rate, not just the floor of 5.
• Isolated and plugin activation are both reported.
• The PR body records root cause, fix, and validation so the lesson is reusable.

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Solution
Rewriting skill prose in response to an underpowered verdict	Underpowered means too few discordant trials; add discriminating stimuli instead
Adding defaults: runs: to a spec that already has config:	Merge into a single defaults: block; vally rejects specs with both
Padding runs to clear the trial floor	Five repeats of one stimulus measure one task; add stimuli
Treating an errored trial as fixture nondeterminism	Read the stderr first; judge-side auth failures need harness fixes
Fixing a "wrong" answer that the fixture actually made wrong	Check fixture self-consistency before blaming the response
Strengthening a skill nobody uses and nothing passes	Weak eval signal plus thin telemetry is a valid retirement case
Landing a fix without re-running	Verify the invoked payload contains the fix; judge noise is real

References

• references/writing-for-baseline-delta.md — content patterns that beat the unskilled model
• references/eval-triage.md — symptom, cause and fix catalogue with PR citations
• eng/eval-quality/README.md — the ten structural gate checks and why each exists
• eng/vally-adapter/InvestigatingResults.md — downloading artifacts and reading results.json. This is the current guide; the similarly-named eng/skill-validator/src/docs/InvestigatingResults.md documents the retired skill-validator evaluate schema and does not describe today's results.