name: peil-evaluation description: Evaluates and judges PEIL-generated prompts for quality and effectiveness. Use when assessing prompt quality, providing feedback on system prompts, rating prompts against criteria, or improving prompt engineering outputs. Keywords: prompt evaluation, prompt quality, prompt feedback, prompt rating, prompt assessment, LLM evaluation, prompt judge. license: MIT metadata: author: Tim Haintz version: "0.2" companion-skill: peil

PEIL Evaluation Skill

This skill evaluates prompts generated using the Prompt Engineering Instructional Language (PEIL) methodology for quality and effectiveness.

When to Use This Skill

Assessing the quality of generated system prompts
Providing constructive feedback on prompt design
Rating prompts against established criteria
Iteratively improving prompts before deployment
Comparing multiple prompt versions

Evaluation Criteria (Weighted)

Criterion	Weight	Description
Clarity and Coherence	30%	Is the language clear and unambiguous? Does the prompt have a logical flow?
Completeness and Comprehensiveness	25%	Does the prompt cover all necessary aspects? Are important elements missing?
Relevance and Applicability	20%	How well does the prompt align with its intended purpose? Is it practical?
Creativity and Originality	15%	Does the prompt introduce novel approaches? How original is it?
Technical Accuracy	10%	Are technical details and instructions accurate?

Evaluation Process

Step 1: Initial Assessment

Read the prompt completely before scoring. Identify:

The intended purpose/task
Target audience (agent, human, specific domain)
Expected output format

Step 2: Criterion-by-Criterion Analysis

For each of the 5 criteria:

Identify specific strengths
Identify areas for improvement
Assign a score (0-100)

Step 3: Calculate Overall Score

Overall = (Clarity × 0.30) + (Completeness × 0.25) + (Relevance × 0.20) + (Creativity × 0.15) + (Accuracy × 0.10)

Step 4: Generate Feedback

Provide actionable recommendations for improvement.

Evaluation Output Format

## Prompt Evaluation Report

### Overall Score: [X]/100

### Criterion Breakdown

| Criterion | Score | Strengths | Areas for Improvement |
|-----------|-------|-----------|----------------------|
| Clarity (30%) | X/100 | ... | ... |
| Completeness (25%) | X/100 | ... | ... |
| Relevance (20%) | X/100 | ... | ... |
| Creativity (15%) | X/100 | ... | ... |
| Technical Accuracy (10%) | X/100 | ... | ... |

### Key Recommendations
1. [Specific, actionable recommendation]
2. [Specific, actionable recommendation]
3. [Specific, actionable recommendation]

### Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of the evaluation]

Scoring Guidelines

Clarity and Coherence (30%)

Score Range	Indicators
90-100	Crystal clear instructions, perfect logical flow, no ambiguity
70-89	Mostly clear, minor ambiguities, good structure
50-69	Some unclear sections, could be better organized
30-49	Confusing in places, poor flow, significant ambiguity
0-29	Very unclear, disorganized, highly ambiguous

Completeness and Comprehensiveness (25%)

Score Range	Indicators
90-100	All PEIL components present, thorough coverage
70-89	Most components present, good coverage with minor gaps
50-69	Some components missing, moderate coverage
30-49	Several components missing, incomplete coverage
0-29	Most components missing, very incomplete

Relevance and Applicability (20%)

Score Range	Indicators
90-100	Perfectly aligned with purpose, immediately applicable
70-89	Well-aligned, practical with minor adjustments
50-69	Somewhat aligned, needs modification for use
30-49	Poorly aligned, limited practical value
0-29	Not aligned with purpose, impractical

Creativity and Originality (15%)

Score Range	Indicators
90-100	Highly innovative approach, novel techniques
70-89	Some creative elements, good use of techniques
50-69	Standard approach, minimal creativity
30-49	Very basic, formulaic
0-29	No creativity, copied template

Technical Accuracy (10%)

Score Range	Indicators
90-100	All technical details correct, best practices followed
70-89	Mostly accurate, minor technical issues
50-69	Some inaccuracies, deviations from best practices
30-49	Several inaccuracies, poor technical implementation
0-29	Major technical errors, incorrect information

Quick Evaluation Checklist

Before detailed evaluation, check:

Does the prompt have a clear Role defined?
Is the Context specific and relevant?
Are complex questions broken down?
Are there specific, actionable instructions?
Is there a length/conciseness constraint?
Is an appropriate prompting technique applied?
Is the desired output format specified?

Common Issues and Recommendations

Issue	Recommendation
Vague role definition	Add specific expertise and domain context
Missing context	Explain the situation and constraints
Overly complex	Break into sub-prompts or stages
No output format	Specify Markdown, JSON, bullet points, etc.
Wrong technique	Match technique to task type (see PEIL techniques)
Too long	Focus on essential instructions, move details to examples
Too short	Add constraints, examples, or edge case handling

Additional Resources

PEIL Skill - Main prompt generation methodology
Evaluation Criteria Details - Extended criterion definitions

peil-evaluation

SKILL.md