Skip to main content
Glama

detect_judge_drift

Compare two evaluation runs to determine if score changes are due to judge drift or system changes, using anchor items that are byte-identical across runs to isolate judge movement.

Instructions

Compare two eval runs and attribute the score change to the system or the judge.

Answers "my scores went up 6% — is that real?". Diffs the judge fingerprint (model, prompt hash, rubric hash, scale, temperature) between runs; if it changed, the two runs are not on the same scale. Then, using anchor items whose outputs are byte-identical across runs — so the system provably did not change — measures how much the judge itself moved and subtracts it.

Without anchors this reports the fingerprint change and refuses to apportion the delta, because apportioning it would assume the answer. Freeze ~30 items with fixed outputs, re-judge them every run: that's your judge canary.

Args: run_a_path: earlier run (JSONL/CSV). run_b_path: later run. anchor_ids: comma-separated item_ids of a declared frozen control set. Optional — anchors are auto-detected from identical output text. verbose: include evidence, fixes and citations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verboseNo
anchor_idsNo
run_a_pathYes
run_b_pathYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description covers the algorithm's logic, fingerprint comparison, anchor usage, and conditional output. It lacks explicit safety or permission info but is thorough for a read-only analysis tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, uses efficient sentences, and avoids redundancy. It includes both a high-level answer and necessary caveats without unnecessary detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's logic, parameter behavior, and output expectations. An output schema exists, so return format details are not required. It is complete for a technical tool, though some edge cases (e.g., file format errors) are omitted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: run paths with format, anchor_ids with optionality and auto-detection, verbose with content list. This fully compensates for schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares two eval runs and attributes score change to system or judge, answering a specific question ('is that real?'). It provides a detailed mechanism (diffing judge fingerprint, using anchor items) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_judge or bias_probe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the anchor requirement and behavior without anchors, giving context on when anchors are needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/asif786ka/judge-audit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server