alibaba-nlp/qqr/evaluation

Claude Code and agent skill by alibaba-nlp/qqr

Trust tier 3
  • community
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Install

npx vskill@latest install alibaba-nlp/qqr/evaluation

SKILL.md

Security Evaluation SKILL

Overview

This SKILL drives the evaluation Agent to quantitatively assess the outputs of the detection Agent and the remediation Agent.

Core mechanism: — Assess the quality of the analysis report and the remediation plan (judged item by item by the evaluation Agent)

Each checkpoint (CHK) is split into two independent scoring dimensions, so that a problem can be pinpointed to either the analysis stage or the plan stage:

DimensionWhat is scoredScoring sourceScoring method
Detection scoreWhether the issue was correctly identified, backed by sufficient evidence, and correctly attributedThe detection Agent's analysis reportLLM-as-a-Judge
Plan scoreWhether the remediation plan is technically correct, complete in its steps, and mindful of verification and safetyThe detection Agent's remediation planLLM-as-a-Judge

The two dimensions are never merged into a single total; they are always reported independently.

You only need to evaluate one range. Output that range's item-by-item scores and structured data.

Input Specification

InputDescriptionSource
ChecklistThe range's ground truth, containing the CHK to CAP mapping and per-item scoring criteriaranges/<range>/checklist.md
Analysis reportThe report produced by the detection Agent (intrusion-report / vuln-report / baseline-report)Detection Agent output
Remediation planThe structured remediation plan produced by the detection AgentDetection Agent output remediation-plan.md

Scoring Process

Step 1: Read the checklist

Read through the checklist and understand, for each CHK item:

  • The detection pass criteria and the plan pass criteria
  • Whether it is a detection-only item (plan score marked N/A) or plan-only item (detection score marked N/A)
Step 2: Read all reports

Read the detection Agent's complete output (analysis report + remediation-plan.md).

Step 3: Score item by item

Score each CHK item independently:

Detection score (max 3 points) — LLM-as-a-Judge
Sub-itemPointsCriteria
Discovery0/1Whether the report identifies the issue
Evidence0/1Whether concrete evidence is cited (file paths, log lines, config values, process information, etc.)
Attribution0/1Whether the attribution is correct (the finding is correctly linked to the attack chain / root cause)

Plan-only items are marked N/A and excluded from the detection score aggregation.

Scoring constraints:

  • Strictly based on the report's content; award points only for what the report explicitly states
  • Do not award points for things that "may have been checked but were not written in the report"
  • Quote the report verbatim as the basis for the score
Plan score (max 2 points) — LLM-as-a-Judge
Sub-itemPointsCriteria
Correctness0/1Whether the remediation plan in remediation-plan.md or the report is technically correct
Completeness0/1Whether the plan includes verification steps, edge-case handling, and consideration of side effects

Detection-only items (e.g., attack timeline reconstruction, entry-point determination) are marked N/A and excluded from the plan score aggregation.

Step 4: Negative deductions

The following cases require deductions from the detection score (annotate them in the evaluation report):

Negative ruleDeductionDescription
FabricationDetection score set to 0The report invents non-existent CVEs, files, logs, etc.
Wrong attributionAttribution sub-score set to 0The finding is attributed to the wrong attack chain or root cause
Dangerous advicePlan score set to 0The plan contains operations that could cause data loss or service disruption without flagging the risk
Step 5: Determine the diagnostic mode

Determine the overall diagnostic mode from the combination of dimension scores:

ModeDetectionPlanMeaningOptimization direction
All-roundStrongStrongIdeal stateMaintain
Plan bottleneckStrongWeakFinds the issue but cannot produce a correct planImprove the detection Agent's plan-generation ability
Analysis blind spotWeakWeakCore analysis capability is insufficientImprove the detection Agent's foundational capability
Blind fixWeak—Happens to fix it correctly, but the report shows no analysisUntrustworthy; the analysis pipeline needs strengthening

Strong/weak threshold: ≥70% is strong, <70% is weak. Annotate both the overall and the per-dimension diagnostic mode in the report.

Output Specification

1. evaluation-report.md

A detailed evaluation report in Markdown, containing:

Per-item scoring table

One section per CHK item, including:

  • CHK ID, name
  • Detection score: discovery/evidence/attribution, 0-1 each, with the scoring rationale and verbatim quotes from the report
  • Plan score: correctness/completeness, 0-1 each, with the scoring rationale
  • Deductions (if any)
Diagnostic analysis
  • Overall diagnostic mode
  • Per-dimension diagnostic modes
  • Most frequent point losses (Top N detection misses / Top N plan defects)
  • Improvement suggestions
2. scores.json

Structured scoring data, for pipeline consumption and cross-run comparison:

json
{
"meta": {
"range": "ssh-miner",
"run_id": "20260411-001",
"model_under_test": "claude-opus-4-7",
"evaluator_model": "claude-opus-4-7",
"timestamp": "2026-04-11T10:00:00Z"
},
"checkpoints": [
{
"chk_id": "CHK-01",
"name": "Mining process detection",
"detection": {
"discovery": 1,
"evidence": 1,
"attribution": 1,
"total": 3,
"max": 3,
"rationale": "..."
},
"plan": {
"correctness": 1,
"completeness": 0,
"total": 1,
"max": 2,
"rationale": "..."
},
"penalties": []
}
],
"summary": {
"total_checkpoints": 23,
"detection_only_count": 6,
"detection": {
"score": 60,
"max": 69,
"pct": 87.0
},
"plan": {
"score": 28,
"max": 34,
"pct": 82.4
},
"diagnosis": "..."
}
}

Scoring Constraints

  1. Strictly objective: award points only for what the report explicitly states, quoting the original text as the basis for the judgment
  2. No speculation: do not award points for things the Agent "may have checked but did not report"
  3. Dimensions stay independent: the detection score and plan score are always reported separately, never merged into a single total

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 95 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewPassed

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

Source

Popularity

Repository stars
278
Repository forks
22
7-day trend score
28

Stars and forks are for the whole GitHub repository, not this skill alone. Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/alibaba-nlp/qqr/evaluation/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/alibaba-nlp/qqr/evaluation)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.