design-ai-benchmarking
FeaturedDesign and validity review for studies that benchmark one or more AI systems against a human-expert panel as the reference. Covers the evaluation question and arm definition, decoupled multi-dimensional rubrics with anchors, planted calibration probes, reviewer-panel construction, inter-rater reliability targets, LLM-as-judge versus human-as-judge adjudication, construct-independence guards, and a structured rating-export schema. Use before data collection on an AI-vs-expert evaluation.
Install
Quality Score: 95/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- Aperivue
- Repository
- Aperivue/medsci-skills
- Created
- 3 months ago
- Last Updated
- yesterday
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
Bundled in these plugins
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
design-study
Study design and validity review for radiology and medical AI research. Identifies analysis unit, cohort logic, leakage risks, comparator design, validation strategy, and reporting guideline fit before drafting or submission.
ai-assisted-performance-review
Evaluate performance fairly when output is AI-assisted — what still measures the human, what now measures the tooling, and how to run the review conversation. Use when reviewing someone whose work is heavily AI-assisted, when output volume stopped meaning anything, when calibrating a team with uneven AI adoption, or when writing review criteria for the AI era. Produces review guidance: a what-measures-whom analysis, rewritten criteria, calibration rules for mixed-adoption teams, and conversation scripts. For the general review document use performance-review; for redesigning the role itself use role-redesign-for-ai.
advanced-evaluation
This skill should be used when the user asks to "implement LLM-as-judge", "compare model outputs", "create evaluation rubrics", "mitigate evaluation bias", or mentions direct scoring, pairwise comparison, position bias, evaluation pipelines, or automated quality assessment.