evaluating-code-models▌
davila7/claude-code-templates · updated Apr 8, 2026
MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.
BigCode Evaluation Harness evaluates code generation models across 15+ benchmarks including HumanEval, MBPP, and MultiPL-E (18 languages).
BigCode Evaluation Harness - Code Model Benchmarking
Quick Start
BigCode Evaluation Harness evaluates code generation models across 15+ benchmarks including HumanEval, MBPP, and MultiPL-E (18 languages).
Installation:
git clone https://github.com/bigcode-project/bigcode-evaluation-harness.git
cd bigcode-evaluation-harness
pip install -e .
accelerate config
Evaluate on HumanEval:
accelerate launch main.py \
--model bigcode/starcoder2-7b \
--tasks humaneval \
--max_length_generation 512 \
--temperature 0.2 \
--n_samples 20 \
--batch_size 10 \
--allow_code_execution \
--save_generations
View available tasks:
python -c "from bigcode_eval.tasks import ALL_TASKS; print(ALL_TASKS)"
Common Workflows
Workflow 1: Standard Code Benchmark Evaluation
Evaluate model on core code benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, HumanEval+).
Checklist:
Code Benchmark Evaluation:
- [ ] Step 1: Choose benchmark suite
- [ ] Step 2: Configure model and generation
- [ ] Step 3: Run evaluation with code execution
- [ ] Step 4: Analyze pass@k results
Step 1: Choose benchmark suite
Python code generation (most common):
- HumanEval: 164 handwritten problems, function completion
- HumanEval+: Same 164 problems with 80× more tests (stricter)
- MBPP: 500 crowd-sourced problems, entry-level difficulty
- MBPP+: 399 curated problems with 35× more tests
Multi-language (18 languages):
- MultiPL-E: HumanEval/MBPP translated to C++, Java, JavaScript, Go, Rust, etc.
Advanced:
- APPS: 10,000 problems (introductory/interview/competition)
- DS-1000: 1,000 data science problems across 7 libraries
Step 2: Configure model and generation
# Standard HuggingFace model
accelerate launch main.py \
--model bigcode/starcoder2-7b \
--tasks humaneval \
--max_length_generation 512 \
--temperature 0.2 \
--do_sample True \
--n_samples 200 \
--batch_size 50 \
--allow_code_execution
# Quantized model (4-bit)
accelerate launch main.py \
--model codellama/CodeLlama-34b-hf \
--tasks humaneval \
--load_in_4bit \
--max_length_generation 512 \
--allow_code_execution
# Custom/private model
accelerate launch main.py \
--model /path/to/my-code-model \
--tasks humaneval \
--trust_remote_code \
--use_auth_token \
--allow_code_execution
Step 3: Run evaluation
# Full evaluation with pass@k estimation (k=1,10,100)
accelerate launch main.py \
--model bigcode/starcoder2-7b \
--tasks humaneval \
--temperature 0.8 \
--n_samples 200 \
--batch_size 50 \
--allow_code_execution \
--save_generations \
--metric_output_path results/starcoder2-humaneval.json
Step 4: Analyze results
Results in results/starcoder2-humaneval.json:
{
"humaneval": {
"pass@1": 0.354,
"pass@10": 0.521,
"pass@100": 0.689
},
"config": {
"model": "bigcode/starcoder2-7b",
"temperature": 0.8,
"n_samples": 200
}
}
Workflow 2: Multi-Language Evaluation (MultiPL-E)
Evaluate code generation across 18 programming languages.
Checklist:
Multi-Language Evaluation:
- [ ] Step 1: Generate solutions (host machine)
- [ ] Step 2: Run evaluation in Docker (safe execution)
- [ ] Step 3: Compare across languages
Step 1: Generate solutions on host
# Generate without execution (safe)
accelerate launch main.py \
--model bigcode/starcoder2-7b \
--tasks multiple-py,multiple-js,multiple-java,multiple-cpp \
--max_length_generation 650 \
--temperature 0.8 \
--n_samples 50 \
--batch_size 50 \
--generation_only \
--save_generations \
--save_generations_path generations_multi.json
Step 2: Evaluate in Docker container
# Pull the MultiPL-E Docker image
docker pull ghcr.io/bigcode-project/evaluation-harness-multiple
# Run evaluation inside container
docker run -v $(pwd)/generations_multi.json:/app/generations.json:ro \
-it evaluation-harness-multiple python3 main.py \
--model bigcode/starcoder2-7b \
--tasks multiple-py,multiple-js,multiple-java,multiple-cpp \
--load_generations_path /app/generations.json \
--allow_code_execution \
--n_samples 50
Supported languages: Python, JavaScript, Java, C++, Go, Rust, TypeScript, C#, PHP, Ruby, Swift, Kotlin, Scala, Perl, Julia, Lua, R, Racket
Workflow 3: Instruction-Tuned Model Evaluation
Evaluate chat/instruction models with proper formatting.
Checklist:
Instruction Model Evaluation:
- [ ] Step 1: Use instruction-tuned tasks
- [ ] Step 2: Configure instruction tokens
- [ ] Step 3: Run evaluation
Step 1: Choose instruction tasks
- instruct-humaneval: HumanEval with instruction prompts
- humanevalsynthesize-{lang}: HumanEvalPack synthesis tasks
Step 2: Configure instruction tokens
# For models with chat templates (e.g., CodeLlama-Instruct)
accelerate launch main.py \
--model codellama/CodeLlama-7b-Instruct-hf \
--tasks instruct-humaneval \
--instruction_tokens "<s>[INST],</s>,[/INST]" \
--max_length_generation 512 \
--allow_code_execution
Step 3: HumanEvalPack for instruction models
# Test code synthesis across 6 languages
accelerate launch main.py \
--model codellama/CodeLlama-7b-Instruct-hf \
--tasks humanevalsynthesize-python,humanevalsynthesize-js \
--prompt instruct \
--max_length_generation 512 \
--allow_code_execution
Workflow 4: Compare Multiple Models
Benchmark suite for model comparison.
Step 1: Create evaluation script
#!/bin/bash
# eval_models.sh
MODELS=(
"bigcode/starcoder2-7b"
"codellama/CodeLlama-7b-hf"
"deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-6.7b-base"
)
TASKS="humaneval,mbpp"
for model in "${MODELS[@]}"; do
model_name=$(echo $model | tr '/' '-')
echo "Evaluating $model"
accelerate launch main.py \
--model $model \
--tasks $TASKS \
--temperature 0.2 \
--n_samples 20 \
--batch_size 20 \
--allow_code_execution \
--metric_output_path results/${model_name}.json
done
Step 2: Generate comparison table
import json
import pandas as pd
models = ["bigcode-starcoder2-7b", "codellama-CodeLlama-7b-hf", "deepseek-ai-deepseek-coder-6.7b-base"]
results = []
for model in models:
with open(f"results/{model}.json") as f:
data = json.load(f)
results.append({
"Model"How to use evaluating-code-models on Cursor
AI-first code editor with Composer
Prerequisites
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
- ›Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
- ›Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with
node --version) - ›Active project directory or workspace where you want to add evaluating-code-models
Execute installation command
Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
The skills CLI fetches evaluating-code-models from GitHub repository davila7/claude-code-templates and configures it for Cursor.
Select Cursor when prompted
The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:
Verify installation
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Reload or restart Cursor to activate evaluating-code-models. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /evaluating-code-models) or your agent's skill management interface.
Security & Verification Notice
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.
List & Monetize Your Skill
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Use Cases▌
User Story & Requirements Generation
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Competitive Analysis
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Roadmap Prioritization
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Stakeholder Communication
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Implementation Guide▌
Prerequisites
- ›Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
- ›Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
- ›Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
- ›Stakeholder contact information and communication channels
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Installation Steps
- 1.Install product management skill
- 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
- 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
- 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
- 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
- 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
- 7.Share effective prompts with product team
Common Pitfalls
- ⚠Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
- ⚠Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
- ⚠Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
- ⚠Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
- ⚠Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements
Best Practices▌
✓ Do
- +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
- +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
- +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
- +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
- +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
- +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition
✗ Don't
- −Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
- −Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
- −Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
- −Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
- −Don't ignore company-specific context and culture
💡 Pro Tips
- ★Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
- ★Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
- ★Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
- ★Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs
When to Use This▌
✓ Use When
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid When
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
Learning Path▌
- 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
- 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
- 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
- 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation
Discussion
Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)- No comments yet — start the thread.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★75 reviews- ★★★★★Luis Farah· Dec 28, 2024
Useful defaults in evaluating-code-models — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 24, 2024
evaluating-code-models reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Aarav Bhatia· Dec 20, 2024
evaluating-code-models has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Advait Anderson· Dec 8, 2024
I recommend evaluating-code-models for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Noor Johnson· Dec 4, 2024
evaluating-code-models is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Zara Kim· Nov 27, 2024
evaluating-code-models reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Olivia Reddy· Nov 19, 2024
Registry listing for evaluating-code-models matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Nov 15, 2024
I recommend evaluating-code-models for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
- ★★★★★Olivia Sethi· Nov 11, 2024
evaluating-code-models fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Advait Rahman· Oct 18, 2024
Registry listing for evaluating-code-models matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 75