Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack

phoenix-evals-new-metric

Create a new built-in classification evaluator for Phoenix evals. Use this skill whenever the user asks to create a new eval, build a new metric, add a new builtin evaluator, create an LLM-as-a-judge metric, or add a new classification evaluator to Phoenix.

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars
8,922
Hot score
99
Updated
March 20, 2026
Overall rating
C4.0
Composite score
4.0
Best-practice grade
B81.2

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install arize-ai-phoenix-phoenix-evals-new-metric

Repository

Arize-ai/phoenix

Skill path: .agents/skills/phoenix-evals-new-metric

Create a new built-in classification evaluator for Phoenix evals. Use this skill whenever the user asks to create a new eval, build a new metric, add a new builtin evaluator, create an LLM-as-a-judge metric, or add a new classification evaluator to Phoenix.

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.

Technical facets: Full Stack.

Target audience: everyone.

License: Apache-2.0.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: Arize-ai.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

  • Install phoenix-evals-new-metric into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
  • Review https://github.com/Arize-ai/phoenix before adding phoenix-evals-new-metric to shared team environments
  • Use phoenix-evals-new-metric for development workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: phoenix-evals-new-metric
description: >-
  Create a new built-in classification evaluator for Phoenix evals. Use this skill whenever the user asks to
  create a new eval, build a new metric, add a new builtin evaluator, create an LLM-as-a-judge
  metric, or add a new classification evaluator to Phoenix.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  author: [email protected]
  version: "1.0.0"
  internal: true
---

# Creating a New Built-in Classification Evaluator

A built-in evaluator is a YAML config (source of truth) that gets compiled into Python and TypeScript code, wrapped in evaluator classes, benchmarked, and documented. The whole pipeline is linear — follow these steps in order.

## Step 0: Gather Requirements

Before writing anything, clarify with the user:

1. **What does this evaluator measure?** Get a one-sentence description of the quality dimension.
2. **What input data is available?** This determines the template placeholders (e.g., `{{input}}`, `{{output}}`, `{{reference}}`, `{{tool_definitions}}`). If the user is vague, ask follow-up questions — the placeholders are the contract between the evaluator and the caller.
3. **What labels make sense?** Binary is most common (e.g., correct/incorrect, faithful/unfaithful), but some metrics use more. Labels map to scores.
4. **Should this appear in the dataset experiments UI?** If yes, it needs the `promoted_dataset_evaluator` label. Currently only correctness, tool_selection, and tool_invocation have this — some may new evaluators don't need it.

## Step 1: Create the YAML Config

Create `prompts/classification_evaluator_configs/{NAME}_CLASSIFICATION_EVALUATOR_CONFIG.yaml`.

Read an existing config to match the current schema. Start with `CORRECTNESS_CLASSIFICATION_EVALUATOR_CONFIG.yaml` for a simple example, or `TOOL_SELECTION_CLASSIFICATION_EVALUATOR_CONFIG.yaml` if your evaluator needs structured span data.

### Key Decision Points

**`choices`** — Maps label strings to numeric scores. For binary evaluators, use positive/negative labels (e.g., `correct: 1.0` / `incorrect: 0.0`). The labels you pick here flow through to the Python class, TS factory, and benchmarks.

**`optimization_direction`** — Use `maximize` when the positive label is the desired outcome (most evaluators). Use `minimize` only if the metric measures something undesirable (e.g., hallucination). This affects how Phoenix displays the metric in the UI.

**`labels`** — Optional list. Add `promoted_dataset_evaluator` only if this evaluator should appear in the dataset experiments UI sidebar.

**`substitutions`** — Only needed if the evaluator is a `promoted_dataset_evaluator` and works with structured span data (tool definitions, tool calls, message arrays). These reference formatter snippets defined in `prompts/formatters/server.yaml`. Read that file if you need substitutions — it defines what structured data formats are available. Most evaluators that only use simple text fields (input, output, reference) don't need substitutions.

### Prompt Writing Tips

- Be explicit about what makes each label correct — the LLM judge needs a clear rubric
- Separate concerns: if evaluating X, explicitly state you're NOT evaluating Y
- Wrap inputs in XML-style tags (e.g., `<context>`, `<output>`) for clear data formatting
- Tell the judge to reason before deciding — this improves accuracy
- Use `{{placeholder}}` (Mustache syntax) for template variables

## Step 2: Compile Prompts

```bash
make codegen-prompts
```

This generates code in three places:

- `packages/phoenix-evals/src/phoenix/evals/__generated__/classification_evaluator_configs/` (Python)
- `src/phoenix/__generated__/classification_evaluator_configs/` (Python, server copy)
- `js/packages/phoenix-evals/src/__generated__/default_templates/` (TypeScript)

Verify the generated files look correct before moving on.

## Step 3: Create the Python Evaluator

Create `packages/phoenix-evals/src/phoenix/evals/metrics/{name}.py`.

**Read `correctness.py` in that directory** — it's the canonical example. Your evaluator follows the same pattern: subclass `ClassificationEvaluator`, pull constants from the generated config, define a Pydantic input schema with fields matching your template placeholders.

After creating the file, **add it to the exports** in `metrics/__init__.py` — both the import and the `__all__` list. Read the current `__init__.py` to see the existing pattern.

## Step 4: Create the TypeScript Evaluator

Create `js/packages/phoenix-evals/src/llm/create{Name}Evaluator.ts`.

**Read `createCorrectnessEvaluator.ts`** — it's the canonical example. The pattern is a factory function that wraps `createClassificationEvaluator` with defaults from the generated config.

Then:

1. **Add the export** to `js/packages/phoenix-evals/src/llm/index.ts`
2. **Add a vitest test** — read `createFaithfulnessEvaluator.test.ts` for the test pattern

## Step 5: Build JS

```bash
cd js && pnpm build
```

Fix any TypeScript errors before proceeding.

## Step 6: Write the Benchmark

Create `js/benchmarks/evals-benchmarks/src/{name}_benchmark.ts`.

Read existing benchmarks in that directory to match the current patterns:

- `tool_invocation_benchmark.ts` — confusion matrix printing, multi-category analysis

### Benchmark Requirements

- **30-50 synthetic examples** organized by category
- **2-4 examples per category** covering: success cases, failure modes, and edge cases
- **Accuracy evaluator** that compares predicted vs expected labels
- **Failed examples printer** — this is critical for debugging. For each misclassified example, print: category, input, output (truncated), expected vs actual label, and the LLM judge's explanation
- **Per-category accuracy** breakdown in the output
- For binary evaluators, a **confusion matrix** is helpful

The task function must return `input` and `output` text in its result so the failed examples printer has access to them.

Consider using a **separate agent session** for synthetic dataset generation if the examples need realistic domain-specific content — this keeps the dataset creation focused and avoids context-switching.

## Step 7: Run the Benchmark

```bash
# Terminal 1: Start Phoenix
PHOENIX_WORKING_DIR=/tmp/phoenix-test phoenix serve

# Terminal 2: Run the benchmark
cd js/benchmarks/evals-benchmarks
pnpm tsx src/{name}_benchmark.ts
```

Target **>80% accuracy**. If accuracy is low, look at the failed examples output to decide whether to adjust the prompt (Step 1) or the benchmark examples (Step 6). Iterate until accuracy is acceptable.

## Step 8: Create Documentation

Create `docs/phoenix/evaluation/pre-built-metrics/{name}.mdx`.

**Read `faithfulness.mdx`** in that directory — it's the template. Follow the same section structure:

1. Overview — when to use, what it measures
2. Supported Levels — span/trace/session, relevant span kinds
3. Input Requirements — required fields table
4. Output Interpretation — labels, scores, direction
5. Usage Examples — Python and TypeScript in tabs
6. Using Input Mapping — lambda example if applicable
7. Viewing/Modifying the Prompt — link to GitHub config, custom prompt usage
8. Configuration — link to LLM config docs
9. Using with Phoenix — links to traces and experiments docs
10. Benchmarks — "Coming soon" placeholder (until benchmark results are published)
11. API Reference — links to Python and TypeScript API docs
12. Related — links to related evaluators

### Navigation Updates

After creating the docs page, update these three files:

1. **`docs.json`** — add the page to the Evaluation > Pre-built Metrics nav group
2. **`docs/phoenix/evaluation/pre-built-metrics.mdx`** — add a card to the landing page grid
3. **`docs/phoenix/sitemap.xml`** — add the new URL

Read each file to see the existing pattern before editing.

## Checklist

Before calling it done, verify:

- [ ] YAML config created with clear rubric and appropriate labels/choices
- [ ] `make codegen-prompts` ran successfully
- [ ] Python evaluator class with input schema matching template placeholders
- [ ] Python exports updated in `metrics/__init__.py`
- [ ] TypeScript evaluator factory with types
- [ ] TypeScript export added to `llm/index.ts`
- [ ] Vitest test for TypeScript evaluator
- [ ] JS packages rebuilt (`cd js && pnpm build`)
- [ ] Benchmark with 30-50 examples, category breakdown, failed examples printer
- [ ] Benchmark accuracy >80%
- [ ] Documentation page following the template structure
- [ ] `docs.json` nav updated
- [ ] Landing page card added
- [ ] Sitemap updated

## Retrospection

After completing the workflow, verify these instructions matched reality:

- Did any file paths, export patterns, or command names change from what's described here?
- Did the YAML config schema gain or lose fields since this was written?
- Did the benchmark or docs patterns evolve from the referenced examples?
- Did `make codegen-prompts` generate to different locations?

If anything drifted, **update this SKILL.md before finishing** so the next person (or agent) doesn't hit the same surprises.
phoenix-evals-new-metric | SkillHub