--- name: eval-suite-planner description: Plan standalone — populates the Eval Suite Planning & Logging Template from an Agent Vision or plain-English agent description. Grounded in Practical Guidance on Agent Evaluation v5: Step 1 planning, Steps 2-3 eval-set decomposition, Step 4 gates/improvement targets, Step 5 human inputs, Step 6 grader-validation planning, Step 7 baseline placeholders, Step 8 regression partitioning, and Step 10 reusable-asset candidates. Output is a template-preserving `.xlsx` workbook plus an interactive HTML review page. Use before generating test cases or running evals. --- ## Purpose This skill produces the **Plan** artifact of the `/eval-guide` lifecycle: a populated copy of the customer's **Eval Suite Planning & Logging Template** plus an interactive HTML review page. The workbook is the source-of-truth artifact; do not replace it with a scenario table, quality-signal table, generic spreadsheet, default `.docx` report, or HTML-only plan. The skill aligns to `skills/eval-guide/playbook.md` and `skills/eval-guide/eval-suite-template.md`. Use the 10-step playbook as the methodology spine and the XLSX template as the output shape. ## Core rule **Copy the blank XLSX template and populate existing cells/rows only. Do not modify the template.** Do not rename sheets, add sheets, delete sheets, add columns, change headers, rewrite README text, edit `Dropdown Lists`, change styles, change data validation, or convert the template into a different spreadsheet. If a blank template workbook is available in the session, use it. If not, ask the user to provide the template; do not silently invent a new workbook. ## Question policy Ask targeted questions only when a workbook field materially affects the plan and cannot be inferred safely: 1. Eval owner / named approver. 2. Lifecycle stage and target deployment decision. 3. Whether the agent is prompt-only, RAG/knowledge-grounded, or agentic with tools/connectors. 4. Regulated/compliance obligations. 5. Authoritative sources and source owners. If the user wants speed or cannot answer, populate `TBD - confirm before baseline`. ## Planning method When invoked as `/eval-suite-planner `: 1. Extract or infer the agent's purpose, users, knowledge sources, capabilities, boundaries, architecture, lifecycle stage, and known risks. 2. Populate **Step 1 — Plan the Eval Effort**: - one-sentence eval objective; - five-factor risk tier: reach, criticality of error, autonomy/blast radius, regulatory/compliance exposure, data sensitivity; - one accountable owner. 3. Define eval sets, not scenarios: - **Capability eval sets**: one row per capability dimension that must be diagnostic, e.g. accuracy/correctness, faithfulness/groundedness, relevancy, style/tone, reasoning/tool use. - **Trust & Safety eval sets**: one row per refusal, boundary, or safety category, e.g. guardrails, out-of-scope handling, sensitive-data handling, prompt injection/jailbreak, compliance-specific behavior. 4. Apply **Step 4 v5 gates/improvement-target logic**: - T&S sets use absolute pass-rate hard gates, usually near 100%. - Capability sets usually use a launch floor for first deployment plus regression/direction after baseline, not a standing absolute pass-rate target. - High-risk capabilities that function like guardrails keep explicit hard floors. - Use the template's existing `Target pass rate`, `Target rationale`, `Gate type`, `Intended use`, `Run cadence`, and `Notes` columns to express this; do not add a new column. 5. Specify **Step 5 human inputs**: - grading rubric, ground truth, golden answer, or rubric + ground truth; - author/owner; - grounding source dependency; - whether source changes require review. 6. Plan **Step 6 grader validation** without changing the template: - record grader type and validation expectation in the registry row's `Notes`; - for LLM-as-judge / Custom rubrics, note that human-labeled hard and borderline cases must validate the judge before baseline scores are trusted; - for programmatic checks, note the deterministic check to confirm; - for human grading, note reviewer agreement expectations where relevant. 7. Seed **Step 7 baseline placeholders** in `3 . Run Log` only when useful: - one placeholder row per eval set; - `Run type = Baseline`; - result fields blank; - `Actionable next step = Validate grader, then run baseline`; - `Status = Open`. 8. Apply **Step 8 regression partitioning** in existing registry fields: - capability sets usually `Intended use = Both` or `Regression`; - most T&S sets are `Gate`; the slim subset likely affected by model/tool/policy changes can be `Both` or `Regression`; - set `Run cadence` using existing dropdown values such as `Per-change`, `Nightly`, `Weekly`, or `Milestone-only`. 9. Flag **Step 10 reusable assets** in `4 . Reusable Library`: - reusable T&S sets; - grading rubrics; - failure-pattern templates; - production-derived edge-case categories when applicable. ## Workbook population rules Use `skills/eval-guide/eval-suite-template.md` as the exact tab/column map. ### `README` Do not edit. ### `1 . Planning` Populate only existing input cells: - Agent identity. - Risk classification (5 factors). - Owners & roles. - Deployment gates / sign-off criteria. For the template's `Min pass rate - Capability` row, reflect v5 Step 4 accurately: use launch floor / high-risk capability floor / regression-governance language, not a generic scenario pass-rate target. ### `2 . Eval Suite Registry` Populate one row per eval set. Do **not** populate one row per test case or legacy planning artifact. Required row semantics: - `Category`: `Capability` or `Trust & Safety`. - `Dimension tested`: capability dimension or T&S category from the template dropdowns. - `Purpose / diagnostic signal`: what failure in this set diagnoses. - `Target pass rate`: absolute gate for T&S; launch floor or `Regression / direction after baseline` for most capability sets. - `Target rationale`: v5 Step 4 rationale. - `Gate type`: closest existing dropdown value. - `Intended use`: `Gate`, `Regression`, or `Both`. - `Run cadence`: cadence for Step 8. - `Human input type`, `Human input author`, `Grounding source dependency`, `Source change -> review?`: Step 5. - `Reusable asset?`, `Reuse tier`, `Set status`: Step 10 and lifecycle status. - `Notes`: assumptions, open questions, Step 4 nuance, and Step 6 grader-validation plan. ### `3 . Run Log` Use this for Step 7 baseline/iteration logging. During planning, add placeholder baseline rows only if useful; keep result fields blank. ### `4 . Reusable Library` Populate candidate reusable assets only. Do not duplicate every eval set; promote assets that could help other agents. ### `Dropdown Lists` Do not edit. ## Output Create `eval-suite--.xlsx` as a populated copy of the template. Then create `eval-suite---review.html` next to the workbook using `skills/eval-guide/plan-review-page.md`. Do not paste the summary, eval-set table, or checklist into chat. The HTML page carries that content. The final chat response should be only the workbook path, the HTML review page path, and any blocker/manual action. ## Human review checkpoints Include these in the HTML review page checklist instead of displaying them in chat: | # | Checkpoint | What to verify | |---|---|---| | 1 | Objective, risk tier, owner | The objective is decision-oriented, the five-factor risk tier is right, and a named owner can sign off. | | 2 | Eval-set decomposition | Capability sets isolate one diagnostic capability each; T&S sets remain separate from capability. | | 3 | Step 4 bars | T&S has absolute hard gates; capability uses launch floors / regression-direction unless high-risk. | | 4 | Human inputs | Rubrics, ground truths, golden answers, and source dependencies have owners. | | 5 | Grader validation | Each set has a plausible grader type and validation plan before baseline. | | 6 | Regression partition | Capability and slim T&S regression sets have cadence; gate-only T&S sets run at milestones. | | 7 | Template integrity | No sheets, columns, headers, dropdowns, README text, or formatting were changed. | ## Behavior rules - Do not generate scenario-plan tables as the Plan artifact. - Do not generate quality-signal sheets or quality-signal grouping as the Plan artifact. - Do not add columns to support missing concepts; use existing fields, especially `Notes`. - Do not create a `.docx` unless the user explicitly asks for a narrative report. - Do not produce long narrative chat output after artifact generation; use the HTML review page for the interactive summary and checkpoints. - Be specific to the described agent, but at eval-set granularity. ## Companion skills - **`/eval-generator`** — Generate test cases from the populated workbook registry. - **`/eval-result-interpreter`** — Interpret baseline / iteration results using Step 6-7 and gate status. - **`/eval-triage-and-improvement`** — Diagnose failures and feed the Step 9 optimization loop. - **`/eval-library-promoter`** — Promote Step 10 reusable assets. - **`/eval-guide`** — Orchestrated workflow with dashboard review checkpoints.