hardness1020/evalgrill/build-eval-dataset

build-eval-dataset

Build tasks that expose the taxonomy's failure modes, not plausible prompts. Every field is either agent-visible or judge-side; keeping that line sharp is most of this skill's job.

Reads failure-taxonomy.yaml + evaluation-dimensions.yaml from the EvalPack directory (run analyze-eval-problem first). Writes:

Steps

1. Gather task material

Collect what exists: real user tasks, informal briefs, production traces, benchmark examples, source documents, domain docs. Real material beats invention — read all of it in full. Copy any documents tasks will reference into the pack (e.g. sources/): a pack is self-contained, and input.context paths are pack-root-relative and must resolve inside it.

2. Plan the slate

Decide the task list before authoring any single task:

• Regression first — each known failed output becomes a task recreating its conditions.
• Failure coverage — every high-severity mode gets at least one task engineered to tempt it. A task targets a mode only if its materials actually create the conditions for that mode to fire — a conflict to miss, a correction to ignore, bait to cite. Listing a mode the task merely could exhibit is noise.
• Boundary cases and counterexamples — tasks where superficially similar outputs have different correct behavior; cases built to break naive heuristics.
• Clean cases — ordinary tasks with no planted trap (failure_targets empty) so the eval doesn't over-optimize for failure scenarios.
• Difficulty tiers — spread across easy / medium / hard.

Leave uncoverable modes visible — the validate phase audits severity-vs-coverage; don't force weak tasks into existence.

3. Author each task

Field discipline, per the schema:

• `input` is the only agent-visible field. The payload given to the system under test equals input exactly (contract-tested). Anything the agent must be told — the question, the documents, real constraints like word limits — lives inside input; everything else is judge-side. Litmus: would telling the agent change its behavior or give away the trap? Then it's judge-side.
• `failure_targets` — taxonomy ids this task is engineered to expose, at step 2's bar. Empty or absent for clean cases.
• `grading_constraints` — judge-side expectations as short snake_case phrases (correction_notice_must_be_applied). State what grading hinges on; never restate the task.
• `reference` — required_observations: facts in the materials a competent answer must engage; acceptable_outcomes: every defensible conclusion, not one golden path. Judge outcomes, never a reference trajectory — several valid answers means several entries.
• `metadata` — category: scenario type, snake_case (conflicting_sources, claim_verification, missing_evidence, …); difficulty: easy = single-source reading, medium = cross-source reasoning, hard = judgment under conflict or uncertainty (calibrate to the domain); risk: blast radius of a wrong answer for whoever consumes it downstream.
• `provenance` honesty — REAL: an actual production task, verbatim. DERIVED: adapted from real material. SYNTHETIC: invented. ADVERSARIAL: invented specifically to bait a failure. Never upgrade; in doubt, take the humbler label.
• `solvable` — assert only after answering the task yourself from input alone. Required info missing, or ambiguity you didn't intend → fix the task, or mark solvable: false deliberately (unanswerable-by-design is a legitimate category).
• `review` — authored output ships verified: false. Only a human flips it (adding reviewer + reviewed_at) after reviewing the task. Never self-verify.

4. Write the dataset card

dataset-card.md — the human-readable account of the dataset:

• Counts — tasks by difficulty, category, provenance; clean vs failure-targeted.
• Coverage map — failure mode → targeting task ids, with uncovered modes listed explicitly.
• Audit — answer each: all tasks solvable? required info present in input? accidental ambiguity? tiers balanced? high-severity modes covered? redundant tasks? easy-case overrepresentation? could any task reward a shortcut? does any reference demand one path where several are valid?
• Review status — how many tasks human-verified.

An audit answer that indicts a task: fix the task now, then re-answer.

5. Self-check

uv run "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/check_dataset.py" <pack-dir>

Fix and re-run until it prints OK.

6. Hand off

Report: the slate shape, the coverage map with its gaps, audit flags, and that tasks await human review (verified: false until the user flips them). Next phase: design-eval-rubric turns the taxonomy + dataset into criteria in the same pack directory.