
Pilot And Evaluation Design
- 44 installs
- 1 repo stars
- Updated July 31, 2026
- jurgendn/agent-skills
Helps with design & ui/ux tasks.
About
pilot-and-evaluation-design is a Claude Code skill for design & ui/ux. It helps solo builders move faster with AI-assisted development.
- pilot-and-evaluation-design
- Design & UI/UX
- AI-coding skill
Pilot And Evaluation Design by the numbers
- 44 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- Ranked #1,262 of 1,880 Design & UI/UX skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 2, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/jurgendn/agent-skills --skill pilot-and-evaluation-designAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 44 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 1 |
| Last updated | July 31, 2026 |
| Repository | jurgendn/agent-skills ↗ |
What it does
Helps with design & ui/ux tasks.
Files
Pilot and Evaluation Design
Design the smallest credible pilot that can decide whether an industry R&D solution should move forward.
The goal is not to prove the solution is perfect. The goal is to reduce uncertainty enough to make a responsible build, stop, or iterate decision.
When to use this skill
Use this skill when:
- a solution candidate exists and needs validation;
- the user needs a PoC, MVP, pilot, or experiment plan;
- the work must connect technical metrics to business value;
- offline evaluation, backtesting, human review, or A/B testing is needed;
- risks such as compliance, fairness, explainability, latency, or adoption must be measured.
For purely academic experiments, use experiment-design. For unclear business problems, use industry-problem-framing first.
Workflow
1. State the pilot decision
Define the decision the pilot must support:
After this pilot, we will decide whether to [scale / redesign / stop / collect more data] based on [criteria].Avoid pilots that only produce a demo. A useful pilot changes a decision.
2. Define scope and deployment boundary
Specify:
- user group or process included;
- data window;
- product or workflow touchpoint;
- whether the pilot is offline, shadow-mode, assisted-human, or live;
- who reviews outputs;
- what actions are allowed;
- what is explicitly out of scope.
Prefer the least risky design that still tests the core mechanism.
Common pilot modes:
| Mode | Use when | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Offline replay | Historical decisions and outcomes exist | Cannot measure behavior change |
| Backtest | Time-dependent decisions matter | Sensitive to leakage and policy changes |
| Shadow mode | Need production-like inputs without affecting users | No direct business impact |
| Human-assisted pilot | Need adoption and judgment signals | Human behavior adds variance |
| A/B test | Safe live intervention is possible | Requires traffic, governance, and monitoring |
3. Define baselines
Always compare against:
- current process;
- simple heuristic;
- simple statistical or ML baseline when relevant;
- published or standard method if feasible;
- human-only or human-with-tool condition when decision support is involved.
If a baseline cannot be implemented, explain why and how this weakens conclusions.
4. Choose metrics by decision role
Use four metric groups:
1. Primary success metric: the metric that decides go/no-go. 2. Diagnostic metrics: explain why the system works or fails. 3. Business metrics: connect to cost, revenue, risk, time, satisfaction, or compliance. 4. Guardrail metrics: ensure the pilot does not create unacceptable harm.
Examples:
- fraud/risk: precision@review-capacity, recall at fixed false-positive rate, loss captured, investigator workload;
- document AI: extraction F1, field-level accuracy, human correction time, hallucination rate;
- recommendation: uplift, conversion, churn, opt-out, fairness by segment;
- LLM support: answer groundedness, escalation rate, handling time, human acceptance, policy violation rate.
5. Prevent invalid conclusions
Check for:
- target leakage;
- future information in features;
- biased labels from existing policy;
- selection bias in reviewed cases;
- seasonality and campaign effects;
- changed business rules;
- non-random pilot assignment;
- metric gaming;
- human review inconsistency;
- data drift.
If any risk is material, add a control or caveat.
6. Add ablations and stress tests
Use ablations only when they answer a decision-relevant question.
Examples:
- remove graph features to test whether network structure matters;
- compare retrieval-only vs generation-with-retrieval for LLM systems;
- compare model score vs model score plus explanation for human adoption;
- test performance by customer segment, branch, channel, or time period;
- stress test out-of-distribution months or rare cases.
7. Set go/no-go criteria
Define thresholds before seeing results.
Go: improves primary metric by X while guardrails remain within Y.
Iterate: improves diagnostics but misses business threshold.
Stop: does not beat current process or violates guardrails.
Collect data: uncertainty dominated by label/data gaps.Use confidence intervals or repeated time splits when sample size allows.
Output format
# Pilot and evaluation design: [solution]
## Pilot decision
## Pilot scope
- Mode:
- Users/process:
- Data window:
- Deployment boundary:
- Out of scope:
## Hypothesis
If we ..., then ..., because ..., compared with ...
## Baselines
## Metrics
| Metric | Type | Why it matters | Decision threshold |
|---|---|---|---|
## Evaluation protocol
- Data split/replay design:
- Human evaluation design:
- Statistical analysis:
- Leakage controls:
- Monitoring:
## Ablations and stress tests
## Risks and guardrails
## Go/no-go criteria
## Pilot deliverablesQuality bar
A good pilot design should be small, safe, decision-relevant, and honest about what it cannot prove.
{
"evals": [
{
"name": "fraud-shadow-pilot",
"prompt": "We have a candidate fraud detection model and want to pilot it safely before production. Design the pilot and evaluation.",
"expected_behavior": "Defines the pilot decision, recommends offline/backtest/shadow or human-assisted mode, includes baselines, precision@capacity or cost metrics, leakage controls, guardrails, and go/no-go thresholds."
},
{
"name": "document-ai-poc",
"prompt": "Design a PoC evaluation for document AI that extracts fields from loan documents and routes low-confidence cases to humans.",
"expected_behavior": "Specifies scope, baselines, field-level metrics, human correction time, hallucination/error guardrails, sampling, stress tests, and decision criteria."
}
]
}