name: google-agents-cli-eval description: > This skill should be used when the user wants to "run an evaluation", "evaluate my ADK agent", "write an evalset", "debug eval scores", "compare eval results", or needs guidance on ADK (Agent Development Kit) evaluation methodology and the eval-fix loop. Covers eval metrics, evalset schema, LLM-as-judge, tool trajectory scoring, and common failure causes. Part of the Google ADK (Agent Development Kit) skills suite. Do NOT use for API code patterns (use google-agents-cli-adk-code), deployment (use google-agents-cli-deploy), or project scaffolding (use google-agents-cli-scaffold). metadata: author: Google license: Apache-2.0 version: 0.1.2 requires: bins: - agents-cli install: "uv tool install google-agents-cli"

ADK Evaluation Guide

Requires: agents-cli (uv tool install google-agents-cli) — install uv first if needed.

Scaffolded project? If you used /google-agents-cli-scaffold, you already have agents-cli eval run, tests/eval/evalsets/, and tests/eval/eval_config.json. Start with agents-cli eval run and iterate from there.

Reference Files

The Eval-Fix Loop

Evaluation is iterative. When a score is below threshold, diagnose the cause, fix it, rerun — don't just report the failure.

How to iterate

1. Start small: Begin with 1-2 eval cases, not the full suite
2. Run eval: agents-cli eval run
3. Read the scores — identify what failed and why
4. Fix the code — adjust prompts, tool logic, instructions, or the evalset
5. Rerun eval — verify the fix worked
6. Repeat steps 3-5 until the case passes
7. Only then add more eval cases and expand coverage

Expect 5-10+ iterations. This is normal — each iteration makes the agent better.

Task tracking: When doing 5+ eval-fix iterations, use a task list to track which cases you've fixed, which are still failing, and what you've tried. This prevents re-attempting the same fix or losing track of regression across iterations.

Shortcuts That Waste Time

Recognize these rationalizations and push back — they always cost more time than they save:

What to fix when scores fail

Choosing the Right Criteria

For the complete metrics reference with config examples, match types, and custom metrics, see references/criteria-guide.md.

Running Evaluations

# Scaffolded projects — agents-cli:
agents-cli eval run --evalset tests/eval/evalsets/my_evalset.json

# With explicit config file:
agents-cli eval run --evalset tests/eval/evalsets/my_evalset.json --config tests/eval/eval_config.json

# Run all evalsets in tests/eval/evalsets/:
agents-cli eval run --all

agents-cli eval run options: --evalset PATH, --config PATH, --all

Compare two result files:

agents-cli eval compare baseline.json candidate.json

Configuration Schema (eval_config.json)

Both camelCase and snake_case field names are accepted (Pydantic aliases). The examples below use snake_case, matching the official ADK docs.

Full example

{
  "criteria": {
    "tool_trajectory_avg_score": {
      "threshold": 1.0,
      "match_type": "IN_ORDER"
    },
    "final_response_match_v2": {
      "threshold": 0.8,
      "judge_model_options": {
        "judge_model": "gemini-flash-latest",
        "num_samples": 5
      }
    },
    "rubric_based_final_response_quality_v1": {
      "threshold": 0.8,
      "rubrics": [
        {
          "rubric_id": "professionalism",
          "rubric_content": { "text_property": "The response must be professional and helpful." }
        },
        {
          "rubric_id": "safety",
          "rubric_content": { "text_property": "The agent must NEVER book without asking for confirmation." }
        }
      ]
    }
  }
}

Simple threshold shorthand is also valid: "response_match_score": 0.8

For custom metrics, judge_model_options details, and user_simulator_config, see references/criteria-guide.md.

EvalSet Schema (evalset.json)

{
  "eval_set_id": "my_eval_set",
  "name": "My Eval Set",
  "description": "Tests core capabilities",
  "eval_cases": [
    {
      "eval_id": "search_test",
      "conversation": [
        {
          "invocation_id": "inv_1",
          "user_content": { "parts": [{ "text": "Find a flight to NYC" }] },
          "final_response": {
            "role": "model",
            "parts": [{ "text": "I found a flight for $500. Want to book?" }]
          },
          "intermediate_data": {
            "tool_uses": [
              { "name": "search_flights", "args": { "destination": "NYC" } }
            ],
            "intermediate_responses": [
              ["sub_agent_name", [{ "text": "Found 3 flights to NYC." }]]
            ]
          }
        }
      ],
      "session_input": { "app_name": "my_app", "user_id": "user_1", "state": {} }
    }
  ]
}

Key fields:

• intermediate_data.tool_uses — expected tool call trajectory (chronological order)
• intermediate_data.intermediate_responses — expected sub-agent responses (for multi-agent systems)
• session_input.state — initial session state (overrides Python-level initialization)
• conversation_scenario — alternative to conversation for user simulation (see references/user-simulation.md)

Common Gotchas

The Proactivity Trajectory Gap

LLMs often perform extra actions not asked for (e.g., google_search after save_preferences). This causes tool_trajectory_avg_score failures with EXACT match. Solutions:

1. Use IN_ORDER or ANY_ORDER match type — tolerates extra tool calls between expected ones
2. Include ALL tools the agent might call in your expected trajectory
3. Use rubric_based_tool_use_quality_v1 instead of trajectory matching
4. Add strict stop instructions: "Stop after calling save_preferences. Do NOT search."

Multi-turn conversations require tool_uses for ALL turns

The tool_trajectory_avg_score evaluates each invocation. If you don't specify expected tool calls for intermediate turns, the evaluation will fail even if the agent called the right tools.

{
  "conversation": [
    {
      "invocation_id": "inv_1",
      "user_content": { "parts": [{"text": "Find me a flight from NYC to London"}] },
      "intermediate_data": {
        "tool_uses": [
          { "name": "search_flights", "args": {"origin": "NYC", "destination": "LON"} }
        ]
      }
    },
    {
      "invocation_id": "inv_2",
      "user_content": { "parts": [{"text": "Book the first option"}] },
      "final_response": { "role": "model", "parts": [{"text": "Booking confirmed!"}] },
      "intermediate_data": {
        "tool_uses": [
          { "name": "book_flight", "args": {"flight_id": "1"} }
        ]
      }
    }
  ]
}

App name must match directory name

The App object's name parameter MUST match the directory containing your agent:

# CORRECT - matches the "app" directory
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="app")

# WRONG - causes "Session not found" errors
app = App(root_agent=root_agent, name="flight_booking_assistant")

The before_agent_callback Pattern (State Initialization)

Always use a callback to initialize session state variables used in your instruction template. This prevents KeyError crashes on the first turn:

async def initialize_state(callback_context: CallbackContext) -> None:
    state = callback_context.state
    if "user_preferences" not in state:
        state["user_preferences"] = {}

root_agent = Agent(
    name="my_agent",
    before_agent_callback=initialize_state,
    instruction="Based on preferences: {user_preferences}...",
)

Eval-State Overrides (Type Mismatch Danger)

Be careful with session_input.state in your evalset. It overrides Python-level initialization:

WRONG — initializes feedback_history as a string, breaks .append():

"state": { "feedback_history": "" }

CORRECT — matches the Python type (list):

"state": { "feedback_history": [] }

Model thinking mode may bypass tools

Models with "thinking" enabled may skip tool calls. Use tool_config with mode="ANY" to force tool usage, or switch to a non-thinking model for predictable tool calling.

Common Eval Failure Causes

Deep Dive: ADK Docs

For the official evaluation documentation, fetch these pages:

• Evaluation overview: https://adk.dev/evaluate/index.md
• Criteria reference: https://adk.dev/evaluate/criteria/index.md
• User simulation: https://adk.dev/evaluate/user-sim/index.md

Debugging Example

User says: "tool_trajectory_avg_score is 0, what's wrong?"

1. Check if agent uses google_search — if so, see references/builtin-tools-eval.md
2. Check if using EXACT match and agent calls extra tools — try IN_ORDER
3. Compare expected tool_uses in evalset with actual agent behavior
4. Fix mismatch (update evalset or agent instructions)

Proving Your Work

Don't assert that eval passes — show the evidence. Concrete output prevents false confidence and catches issues early.

• After running eval: Paste the scores table output so the user can see exactly what passed and failed.
• After fixing a failure: Show before/after scores for the specific case you fixed, and confirm no other cases regressed.
• Before declaring "eval passes": Confirm ALL cases pass, not just the one you were working on. Run agents-cli eval run (or agents-cli eval run --all) one final time.
• Before moving to deploy: Show the final agents-cli eval run output with all cases above threshold. This is the gate — no exceptions.

Related Skills

• /google-agents-cli-workflow — Development workflow and the spec-driven build-evaluate-deploy lifecycle
• /google-agents-cli-adk-code — ADK Python API quick reference for writing agent code
• /google-agents-cli-scaffold — Project creation and enhancement with agents-cli scaffold create / scaffold enhance
• /google-agents-cli-deploy — Deployment targets, CI/CD pipelines, and production workflows
• /google-agents-cli-observability — Cloud Trace, logging, and monitoring for debugging agent behavior