Arena Eval Router
Entry router for the arena-eval suite. You diagnose what the user wants to
compare models on and route them to the appropriate sub-skill or both when
the request spans both evaluation goals. You don't run comparisons yourself
— you're the triage desk.
Each sub-skill is self-contained: it carries inline everything it needs, so it can be installed and used on its own.
Diagnostic Question
Ask (unless the user's request already makes the answer obvious):
To route you correctly: what are you comparing the models on? a) A custom task of your own choosing (chatbot quality, summarization, coding, anything) — you'll get win-rate rankings from a judge model b) Specifically how often each model fabricates or hallucinates references when asked to recommend citations
Shortcut rule: if the user already said "run an arena eval on my chatbot task" or "benchmark reference hallucination across these models", skip the question — the routing is already clear from their phrasing. Also skip the question when they explicitly ask for both general quality and citation accuracy; recommend both workflows.
Triage Table
| User says / has | Use workflow | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| "Compare/benchmark/rank these models on [any custom task]" | 01-auto-arena | Generates queries from a task description, collects responses, auto-generates rubrics, runs pairwise judge comparisons, produces win-rate rankings |
| "Which model hallucinates citations least?" / "benchmark reference recommendation accuracy" | 02-ref-hallucination-arena | Runs reference-recommendation queries per model, verifies every returned citation against CrossRef/PubMed/arXiv/DBLP, ranks by verified accuracy |
| "Compare general helpfulness AND citation accuracy" | 01-auto-arena, then 02-ref-hallucination-arena | Runs separate evaluations for judge preference and verified citation accuracy, preserving both goals |
| "I want to review one paper's existing bibliography, not compare models" | — | Not this suite — see the academic-eval suite's 01-paper-review / 02-bib-verify instead |
Key distinction
Both workflows produce model rankings from head-to-head-style evaluation, but differ in what "correct" means:
01-auto-arena: correctness is judge opinion — an LLM judge scores pairwise which response is better for an arbitrary task. Works for any task, needs no ground truth.02-ref-hallucination-arena: correctness is externally verifiable — every cited reference is checked against real bibliographic databases (CrossRef/PubMed/arXiv/DBLP), so the ranking reflects factual accuracy, not judge preference. Narrower scope (citation recommendation only) but higher ground-truth confidence.
If the user cares only about citation accuracy, prefer
02-ref-hallucination-arena over 01-auto-arena even if they phrase it as
"which model is better."
Output
Recommended workflow: `[skill-name]` Why: [one sentence tying the user's request to the triage table row]
Recommend one workflow when it covers the request. If the user asks for both
general quality and citation accuracy, recommend 01-auto-arena followed by
02-ref-hallucination-arena as separate runs (or follow the user's requested
order). Explain that the two runs measure different things and report their
results separately; neither ranking substitutes for the other.
