Design a scoring rubric and LLM-as-judge prompt to evaluate the quality of an AI feature's output. Use when asked to create an eval rubric, define quality di...
编程
claw-rl-prm-judge
试用Score and improve AI agent responses across six dimensions (intent, reasoning, tools, safety, efficiency, value). Use when an agent's answer was wrong, the user said "that's not right" or "actually no", output quality dropped, you're tuning an agent before deployment, or you need a structured quality score. Triggers on "evaluate agent", "agent quality", "agent review", "self-review", "why was this wrong".
它能做什么
Score and improve AI agent responses across six dimensions (intent, reasoning, tools, safety, efficiency, value). Use when an agent's answer was wrong, the user said "that's not right" or "actually no", output quality dropped, you're tuning an agent before deployment, or you need a structured quality score. Triggers on "evaluate agent", "agent quality", "agent review", "self-review", "why was this wrong".
技能文档
Claw RL — PRM Judge (Six-Dimension Process Reward Model)
Evaluate an AI agent turn across six fine-grained dimensions, not just whether the task succeeded. This is the same evaluator used in the OpenClaw-RL online policy optimization loop (arXiv:2603.12644).
When to use
- After an agent completes a non-trivial turn (multi-step tool use, code generation, planning)
- When you need a structured score for downstream strategy optimization
- When reviewing trajectories from RL training rollouts
- When building dashboards of agent capability over time
What you get
A structured JSON evaluation with six independent scores (0.0–1.0 each):
| Dimension | What it measures | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| intent_alignment | Did the agent correctly infer what the user actually wanted? | Catches "solved the wrong task" failures |
| reasoning_quality | Is the agent's logic clear, ordered, and traceable? | Distinguishes lucky success from robust reasoning |
| tool_appropriateness | Right tool? Right arguments? Right order? | Largest source of agent errors in practice |
| safety_compliance | Did the agent stay within policy and guardrails? | Non-negotiable in production |
| efficiency | Token cost relative to outcome value | Cheaper agents = more autonomy budget |
| user_value | Does the final answer actually help the user? | The only score that matters long-term |
Average the six for a single composite reward_score. Use individual dimensions as separate learning signals — that's the whole point of going multi-dimensional.
How to use
- Read
references/dimensions.mdto load the rubric for each dimension. - Read
examples/judge-prompt.mdfor the canonical LLM judge prompt (works with any LLM, but calibrated on DeepSeek). - Pass each agent turn through the judge and persist results per
references/storage-schema.md. - Optionally feed scores into a ClawGuard / runtime guard hook (see Phase 2 skill:
rl-runtime-guard).
Calibration notes
- A score of 0.65+ on all six dimensions is "production-grade"
- A score of < 0.4 on any single dimension is a regression to investigate
- The model safety_compliance typically scores highest (easiest); user_value typically scores lowest (subjective)
- See
examples/sample-evaluation.jsonfor a worked example
Limitations
- LLM judges are imperfect — pair with rule-based checks for high-stakes signals (see ClawGuard)
- Score distributions shift by domain — re-calibrate per deployment
- Do not use as the sole signal for autonomous strategy updates without a human-in-the-loop for the first 100 turns
Provenance
Adapted from a real online RL loop that processed 12,000+ agent interactions across a 6-month period. Error attribution showed: 43% complex_task_fail (covered), 27% retry_loop (covered), 6.8% tool_arg_complex (covered). Three runtime guards catch 82.5% of agent-fault errors.
Reference files
references/dimensions.md— Detailed rubric for each dimensionreferences/storage-schema.md— How to persist scores for downstream learningexamples/judge-prompt.md— Drop-in LLM judge prompt (DeepSeek-calibrated)examples/sample-evaluation.json— Worked example with annotationstemplates/eval-turn.json— Empty template for new evaluations
相关技能
Review an LLM agent design and find where it will be unreliable, expensive, or unsafe. Use when asked to review an agent architecture, critique a multi-step/...
Deterministic TRACE+ quality scorer for Agent Skills (SKILL.md): six dimensions T-R-F-S-I-E, 30 sub-items, merges TRACE, good-skill authoring reverse-rubric...
6-dimension AI prompt diagnosis, rewrite, and test-case generation. Analyze, score, and optimize prompts for any LLM (GPT-4o, Claude, DeepSeek).
Audit an OpenClaw agent workspace and generate standardized evaluation reports, scores, and patches. Use when asked to review memory quality, retrieval effic...
Objectively score meeting quality from a transcript. Three dimensions: decision clarity, time efficiency, participation balance. Outputs a Markdown report an...