Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

SkillCoach: Self-Evolving Rubrics for Evaluating and Enhancing Agentic Skill-Use

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-07-03 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read SkillCoach derives self-evolving rubrics from rollouts to evaluate agent skill-use on process dimensions distinct from final success.

desk verdict SkillCoach gives a concrete way to add process-level rubrics to skill-using agents while keeping outcome verification separate, but the self-evolution step still needs evidence that it does not just echo the initial rollout distribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.01874 v1 pith:X2ZV5PK5 submitted 2026-07-02 cs.AI cs.CL

Jiayin Zhu , Kelong Mao , Yudong Guo , Dengbo He , Sulong Xu , Simiu Gu , Yutao Yue This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords agenticskillsself-evolvingrubricsprocessevaluationLLMagentstrajectorysupervisionskillselectioncompositionvsoutcome
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

SkillCoach creates rubrics that assess how agents select, follow, compose, and reflect on skills during task execution. These rubrics come from actual agent rollouts and evolve over time. The approach treats final task success as a separate signal from the quality of the skill-use process. This distinction helps reveal failures that would otherwise go unnoticed when only checking the end result. The rubrics also guide the selection of better training examples for improving agent performance.

What carries the argument

Self-evolving rubrics derived from rollouts that score trajectories on four process dimensions and supply process supervision signals separate from outcome verification.

What would settle it

A side-by-side rating of the same trajectories by human experts where the evolved rubrics show no higher agreement with the experts than final accuracy alone does.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SkillCoach derives skill-grounded process rubrics from real rollouts and evaluates trajectories along four dimensions: skill selection, skill following, skill composition, and skill-grounded reflection. It keeps the external verifier as a separate outcome signal, allowing process quality to be distinguished from accidental task success. The evolved rubrics further serve as process supervision for selecting high-quality training trajectories.

Load-bearing premise

Rubrics automatically derived from rollouts capture meaningful distinctions in the four process dimensions without systematic bias from the initial rollout distribution or the evolution process.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Evolved rubrics substantially improve evaluation quality over final accuracy alone.
  • They expose failures hidden by final accuracy.
  • They provide stronger supervision signals than outcome-only filtering for selecting training trajectories.
  • Process quality can be tracked independently of whether the task succeeds by chance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separation of process and outcome signals could apply to other agent evaluation settings that currently rely only on end results.
  • Self-evolution of rubrics might reduce the need for manual rubric design when new skills or domains appear.
  • Using process rubrics for filtering could produce training data that leads to agents less prone to trial-and-error behavior in multi-skill environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces SkillCoach, a self-evolving rubric framework for evaluating and enhancing agentic skill-use in LLM agents. It derives skill-grounded process rubrics from real rollouts and evaluates trajectories along four dimensions: skill selection, skill following, skill composition, and skill-grounded reflection. The external verifier is kept separate as an outcome signal. Experiments demonstrate that the evolved rubrics improve evaluation quality, expose failures hidden by final accuracy, and provide stronger supervision signals than outcome-only filtering.

Significance. If the results hold, SkillCoach could offer a valuable method for process-level evaluation and supervision in agentic systems, addressing the limitations of coarse final verifiers in environments with overlapping skills. The explicit separation of process and outcome signals is a positive design choice that allows distinguishing genuine skill-use quality from accidental success.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experiments] The central claim that evolved rubrics capture meaningful distinctions in the four process dimensions without systematic bias from the initial rollout distribution requires stronger validation. The manuscript does not provide ablations or analyses showing that the rubric evolution is independent of the base agent's exploration policy or skill repository characteristics, which is load-bearing for the claim that improvements reflect discovery of hidden process failures rather than re-weighting of the original distribution (Experiments section).
  2. [Method] Details on the self-evolution mechanism for rubrics are insufficient to assess whether criteria remain anchored to independent process quality or propagate skews from the initial trajectories used for both generation and evaluation (Method section).
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly state the base models, datasets, or skill repositories used in the experiments to provide context for the claimed improvements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments highlight important areas for strengthening the validation of our claims and the clarity of the method. We address each below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experiments] The central claim that evolved rubrics capture meaningful distinctions in the four process dimensions without systematic bias from the initial rollout distribution requires stronger validation. The manuscript does not provide ablations or analyses showing that the rubric evolution is independent of the base agent's exploration policy or skill repository characteristics, which is load-bearing for the claim that improvements reflect discovery of hidden process failures rather than re-weighting of the original distribution (Experiments section).

    Authors: We agree that demonstrating independence from the initial rollout distribution is important for the central claim. The current experiments compare evolved rubrics against outcome-only baselines and show improved detection of process failures, but they do not include the requested cross-policy or cross-repository ablations. In the revision we will add these analyses: we will re-run rubric evolution using trajectories from two additional base agents with different exploration policies and from a second skill repository, then measure whether the resulting rubrics yield consistent process-quality rankings and supervision gains. This will directly test whether improvements arise from re-weighting the original distribution or from discovery of generalizable process criteria. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Details on the self-evolution mechanism for rubrics are insufficient to assess whether criteria remain anchored to independent process quality or propagate skews from the initial trajectories used for both generation and evaluation (Method section).

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current Method section provides only a high-level description of the self-evolution loop. In the revision we will expand this section with (1) a detailed algorithm box showing the exact steps of rubric generation, scoring, and iterative refinement, (2) explicit discussion of how the external verifier remains an independent outcome signal that is never used to modify rubric criteria, and (3) concrete examples illustrating how a rubric criterion is updated only when multiple trajectories exhibit the same process pattern, thereby reducing the risk of propagating single-trajectory skews. These additions will allow readers to evaluate whether the mechanism stays anchored to process quality. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation remains self-contained with external verification

full rationale

The paper derives rubrics from rollouts, evolves them, and applies them to distinguish process quality from outcome success while keeping the external verifier separate. Experiments then measure improvements in evaluation quality and supervision signals against baselines. No quoted step reduces a central claim (e.g., 'improved evaluation quality') to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the four process dimensions are evaluated via the evolved rubrics but validated externally rather than tautologically. This is the normal case of an independent experimental pipeline.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework implicitly assumes that rollout-derived rubrics can be meaningfully evolved and applied without additional human annotation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SkillCoach: Self-Evolving Rubrics for Evaluating and Enhancing Agentic Skill-Use." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X2ZV5PK5

@misc{pith2026260701874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SkillCoach: Self-Evolving Rubrics for Evaluating and Enhancing Agentic Skill-Use},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X2ZV5PK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.01874}
}
read the original abstract

Skills are becoming a reusable operational layer for LLM agents, encoding SOPs, domain rules, tool workflows, scripts, and validation routines. In realistic skill repositories, overlapping skills make reliable skill-use difficult. Final verifier success is too coarse for both evaluation and training, since an agent may pass through trial and error while selecting distractor skills, skipping required steps, composing workflows incorrectly or omitting final checks. We introduce SkillCoach, a self-evolving rubric framework for evaluating and enhancing agentic skill-use. SkillCoach derives skill-grounded process rubrics from real rollouts and evaluates trajectories along four dimensions: skill selection, skill following, skill composition, and skill-grounded reflection. It keeps the external verifier as a separate outcome signal, allowing process quality to be distinguished from accidental task success. The evolved rubrics further serve as process supervision for selecting high-quality training trajectories. Experiments show that evolved rubrics substantially improve evaluation quality, expose failures hidden by final accuracy, and provide stronger supervision signals than outcome-only filtering for enhancing agentic skill-use.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Rethinking Self-Evolving Agent Skills: Feedback Dynamics over Multiple Rounds

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Persistent agent skill evolution is sparse, validation-filtered search whose gains depend strongly on model, benchmark, and which feedback (failures versus successes) is shown.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks

    Xiangyi Li, Yimin Liu, Wenbo Chen, Bingran You, Zonglin Di, Yifeng He, Shenghan Zheng, Kyoung Whan Choe, Jiankai Sun, Shuyi Wang, Chujun Tao, Binxu Li, Xuandong Zhao, Hejia Geng, Xiaojun Wu, Junwei Zhou, Xiaokun Chen, Hanwen Xing, Yubo Li, Qunhong Zeng, Di Wang, Yuanli Wang, Roey Ben Chaim, Penghao Jiang, Haotian Shen, Luyang Kong, Xinyi Liu, Runhui Wang,...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Shanshan Zhong, Yi Lu, Jingjie Ning, Yibing Wan, Lihan Feng, Yuyi Ao, Leonardo F. R. Ribeiro, Markus Dreyer, Sean Ammirati, and Chenyan Xiong. Skilllearnbench: Benchmarking continual learning methods for agent skill generation on real-world tasks. 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.20087

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    SkillFlow:Benchmarking Lifelong Skill Discovery and Evolution for Autonomous Agents

    Ziao Zhang, Kou Shi, Shiting Huang, Avery Nie, Yu Zeng, Yiming Zhao, Zhen Fang, Qishen Su, Haibo Qiu, Wei Yang, QingnanRen, ShunZou, WenxuanHuang, LinChen, ZehuiChen, andFengZhao. SkillFlow: Benchmarking lifelong skill discovery and evolution for autonomous agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17308, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17308

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [4]

    Agent Skills for Large Language Models: Architecture, Acquisition, Security, and the Path Forward

    Renjun Xu and Yang Yan. Agent skills for large language models: Architecture, acquisition, security, and the path forward.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.12430, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.12430

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

    EvoSkill: Automated Skill Discovery for Multi-Agent Systems

    Salaheddin Alzubi, Noah Provenzano, Jaydon Bingham, Weiyuan Chen, and Tu Vu. EvoSkill: Automated skill discovery for multi-agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02766, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603. 02766

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    SkillOpt: Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills

    Yifan Yang, Ziyang Gong, Weiquan Huang, Qihao Yang, Ziwei Zhou, Zisu Huang, Yan Li, Xuemei Gao, Qi Dai, Bei Liu, Kai Qiu, Yuqing Yang, Dongdong Chen, Xue Yang, and Chong Luo. SkillOpt: Executive strategy for self-evolving agent skills.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23904, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23904

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents

    Mingchen Zhuge, Changsheng Zhao, Dylan Ashley, Wenyi Wang, Dmitrii Khizbullin, Yunyang Xiong, Zechun Liu, Ernie Chang, Raghuraman Krishnamoorthi, Yuandong Tian, Yangyang Shi, Vikas Chandra, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate agents with agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10934, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10934

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agents

    Shengda Fan, Xuyan Ye, Yupeng Huo, Zhi-Yuan Chen, Yiju Guo, Shenzhi Yang, Wenkai Yang, Shuqi Ye, Jingwen Chen, Haotian Chen, Xin Cong, and Yankai Lin. AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing step-level process quality in tool-using agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14465, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.14465

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    ToolPRMBench: Evaluating and advancing process reward models for tool-using agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12294, 2026

    Dawei Li, Yuguang Yao, Zhen Tan, Huan Liu, and Ruocheng Guo. ToolPRMBench: Evaluating and advancing process reward models for tool-using agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12294, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2601.12294

    2026

  2. [10]

    AdaRubric: Task-adaptive rubrics for reliable LLM agent evaluation and reward learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21362, 2026

    Liang Ding. AdaRubric: Task-adaptive rubrics for reliable LLM agent evaluation and reward learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.21362, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.21362. 13

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Autorubric: Unifying rubric-based LLM evaluation

    Delip Rao and Chris Callison-Burch. Autorubric: Unifying rubric-based LLM evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.00077, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00077

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    CUA- Skill: Develop skills for computer using agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21123, 2026

    Tianyi Chen, Yinheng Li, Michael Solodko, Sen Wang, Nan Jiang, Tingyuan Cui, Junheng Hao, Jongwoo Ko, Sara Abdali, Leon Xu, Suzhen Zheng, Hao Fan, Pashmina Cameron, Justin Wagle, and Kazuhito Koishida. CUA- Skill: Develop skills for computer using agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:26...

    2026

  5. [13]

    Danish Lim, I

    M. Danish Lim, I. Danial Bin Sharudin, Wen Han Chen, Cedric Lim, and Laura Wynter. Declarative skills for AI agents in knowledge-grounded tool-use workflows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06923, 2026. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2606.06923

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    How well do agentic skills work in the wild: Benchmarking llm skill usage in realistic settings, 2026

    Yujian Liu, Jiabao Ji, Li An, Tommi Jaakkola, Yang Zhang, and Shiyu Chang. How well do agentic skills work in the wild: Benchmarking llm skill usage in realistic settings, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04323

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    SkillGen: Verified inference-time agent skill synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10999, 2026

    Yuchen Ma, Yue Huang, Han Bao, Haomin Zhuang, Swadheen Shukla, Michel Galley, Xiangliang Zhang, and Stefan Feuerriegel. SkillGen: Verified inference-time agent skill synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.10999, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.10999

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    SkillAxe: Sharpening LLM-authored agent skills through evaluation-guided self-refinement

    Srishti Gautam, Arjun Radhakrishna, and Sumit Gulwani. SkillAxe: Sharpening LLM-authored agent skills through evaluation-guided self-refinement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.10546, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2606.10546

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hanrong Zhang, Shicheng Fan, Henry Peng Zou, Yankai Chen, Zhenting Wang, Jiayu Zhou, Chengze Li, Wei- Chieh Huang, Yifei Yao, Kening Zheng, Xue Liu, Xiaoxiao Li, and Philip S. Yu. CoEvoSkills: Self-evolving agent skills via co-evolutionary verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:26...

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    SKILL- FOUNDRY: Building self-evolving agent skill libraries from heterogeneous scientific resources.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03964, 2026

    Shuaike Shen, Wenduo Cheng, Mingqian Ma, Alistair Turcan, Martin Jinye Zhang, and Jian Ma. SKILL- FOUNDRY: Building self-evolving agent skill libraries from heterogeneous scientific resources.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.03964, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03964

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    MUSE-Autoskill: Self-evolving agents via skill creation, memory, management, and evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27366, 2026

    Huawei Lin, Peng Li, Jie Song, Fuxin Jiang, and Tieying Zhang. MUSE-Autoskill: Self-evolving agents via skill creation, memory, management, and evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27366, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2605.27366

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Reinforcement learning for self-improving agent with skill library

    Jiongxiao Wang, Qiaojing Yan, Yawei Wang, Yijun Tian, Soumya Smruti Mishra, Zhichao Xu, Megha Gandhi, Panpan Xu, and Lin Lee Cheong. Reinforcement learning for self-improving agent with skill library. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17102, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2512.17102

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    SkillRL: Evolving agents via recursive skill- augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 2026

    Peng Xia, Jianwen Chen, Hanyang Wang, Jiaqi Liu, Kaide Zeng, Yu Wang, Siwei Han, Yiyang Zhou, Xujiang Zhao, Haifeng Chen, Zeyu Zheng, Cihang Xie, and Huaxiu Yao. SkillRL: Evolving agents via recursive skill- augmented reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08234, 202...

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    MemSkill: Learning and evolving memory skills for self-evolving agents

    HaozhenZhang, QuanyuLong, JianzhuBao, TaoFeng, WeizhiZhang, HaodongYue, andWenyaWang. MemSkill: Learning and evolving memory skills for self-evolving agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02474, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02474

    2026 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rossi, and Xiyang Hu

    Xiaolin Zhou, Jinbo Liu, Li Li, Ryan A. Rossi, and Xiyang Hu. Counterfactual trace auditing of LLM agent skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.11946, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11946. 14 Category Task Skill Library Data Gold Distr. Inst. Training Tasks Software Engineerin...

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    skill_selection (GATE): did the agent select the required gold skill(s) and avoid distractor skills? In a no-gold setting, did it correctly refuse to use a skill? If this fails, downstream dimensions are discounted

  17. [25]

    not needed

    skill_following: did the agent actually perform the skill’s KEY STEPS (not just name the skill)? Steps marked "not needed" for this instance do not count against coverage. 17

  18. [26]

    skill_composition_order: for multi-skill / multi-step tasks, are the step ORDER and the passing of intermediate artifacts between skills correct? If the task has a single gold skill this dimension is not_applicable

  19. [27]

    key_steps

    result_reflection: before finishing, did the agent do an EXPLICIT, visible self-check / verification / reflection of its result? Only visible behavior counts; never assume hidden reasoning. verifier: the task’s hard verifier result. This is an external outcome signal produced ...

  20. [28]

    Return at least 4 key steps unless the task is truly trivial. 18

  21. [29]

    At least one key step must come from the gold skill content

  22. [30]

    At least one key step must be tied to the final artifact or verifier requirement

  23. [31]

    Every critical step must include positive_evidence and negative_evidence

  24. [32]

    Each description must describe an action that can be checked against tool calls, messages, files, commands, or artifacts

  25. [33]

    rubric_id

    Do not infer hidden reasoning. Only visible trajectory evidence counts. Return ONLY the JSON object. USER PROMPT TEMPLATE Extract evidence-checkable key steps for task ‘<task_id>‘. <TASK_INSTRUCTION> <task instruction redacted> </TASK_INSTRUCTION> <FULL_GOLD_SKILL_PACK::<skill...

  26. [34]

    skill_selection must name the actual gold skills and distractor skills

  27. [35]

    skill_selection must distinguish real skill use (SKILL.md was read) from merely mentioning a skill name

  28. [36]

    skill_following.key_steps must be exactly the provided EXTRACTED_KEY_STEPS

  29. [37]

    skill_following criteria and score_rules must refer to key step IDs

  30. [38]

    If there is only one gold skill, set skill_composition_order.applicable to false

  31. [39]

    If there are multiple gold skills or ordered substeps, fill expected_order, dependencies, and handoff_requirements

  32. [40]

    result_reflection only counts visible self-checking behavior

  33. [41]

    verifier is not judged by an LLM; it comes from the hard benchmark verifier

  34. [42]

    Launching skill:

    Sample real rollouts are only for trajectory format and common mistakes. They are not labels. Return ONLY the JSON rubric. USER PROMPT TEMPLATE Generate the R0 rubric for task ‘<task_id>‘. <TASK_INSTRUCTION> <task instruction redacted> </TASK_INSTRUCTION> <TASK_PACKAGE> <task ...

  35. [43]

    correct means all required gold skills were selected and no harmful distractor was used

  36. [44]

    partial means a gold skill was read or invoked, but distractor evidence also appears

  37. [45]

    wrong means the agent mainly selected a distractor or used the wrong skill path

  38. [46]

    missing means no gold skill evidence is found

  39. [47]

    false_trigger is true when the agent uses a skill in a no-gold setting or forces an irrelevant skill

  40. [48]

    dimension

    Every positive judgment must cite event_index evidence. INPUT TEMPLATE <EVENT_INDEXED_TIMELINE> <compact timeline with event_index retained> </EVENT_INDEXED_TIMELINE> <SKILL_EVENTS> <skill event JSON, if present> </SKILL_EVENTS> <GOLD_SKILLS> <gold skill names> </GOLD_SKILLS> ...

  41. [49]

    Do not output critical_step_coverage

  42. [50]

    The code will compute score and coverage later

  43. [51]

    completed and partial require at least one event_index evidence item

  44. [52]

    missing may have empty evidence

  45. [53]

    not_needed must cite the key step’s optional_condition

  46. [54]

    schema_version

    If there is no gold skill invocation evidence, do not mark critical skill-specific steps as completed. Return ONLY that JSON object. USER PROMPT TEMPLATE Judge dimension ‘skill_following‘ for a trajectory on task ‘<task_id>‘. <DIMENSION_RUBRIC> <skill_following rubric JSON, in...

  47. [55]

    First infer observed_order from the trajectory

  48. [56]

    Compare observed_order with expected_order

  49. [57]

    Check whether each dependency’s artifact was produced before it was consumed

  50. [58]

    Check whether handoff_requirements are satisfied

  51. [59]

    If there is only one gold skill and no ordered dependencies, return score 1.0 and order_correct=null

  52. [60]

    dimension

    Cite event_index evidence for every error. Return ONLY that JSON object. USER PROMPT TEMPLATE Judge dimension ‘skill_composition_order‘ for a trajectory on task ‘<task_id>‘. <DIMENSION_RUBRIC> <composition rubric JSON with expected_order, dependencies, and handoff requirements...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.