If you ship LLM agents in production, you’ll eventually hit the same painful truth: agents don’t fail once-they fail in new, surprising ways every time you change a prompt, tool, model, or knowledge source. That’s why you need an agent evaluation framework: a repeatable way to test LLM agents offline, monitor them in production, and stop regressions before customers do.
This guide gives you a practical, enterprise-ready evaluation stack: offline evals, golden tasks, scoring rubrics, automated regression checks, and production monitoring (traces, tool-call audits, and safety alerts). If you’re building under reliability/governance constraints, this is the fastest way to move from “it works on my laptop” to “it holds up in the real world.”
Moreover, an evaluation framework is not a one-time checklist. It is an ongoing loop that improves as your agent ships to more users and encounters more edge cases.
TL;DR
- Offline evals catch regressions early (prompt changes, tool changes, model upgrades).
- Evaluate agents on task success, not just “answer quality”. Track tool-calls, latency, cost, and safety failures.
- Use golden tasks + adversarial tests (prompt injection, tool misuse, long context failures).
- In production, add tracing + audits (prompt/tool logs), plus alerts for safety/quality regressions.
- Build a loop: Collect → Label → Evaluate → Fix → Re-run.
Table of Contents
- What is an agent evaluation framework?
- Why agents need evals (more than chatbots)
- Metrics that matter: success, reliability, cost, safety
- Offline evals: datasets, golden tasks, and scoring
- Production monitoring: traces, audits, and alerts
- 3 implementation paths (simple → enterprise)
- A practical checklist for week 1
- FAQ
What is an agent evaluation framework?
An agent evaluation framework is the system you use to measure whether an LLM agent is doing the right thing reliably. It includes:
- A set of representative tasks (real user requests, not toy prompts)
- A scoring method (success/failure + quality rubrics)
- Automated regression tests (run on every change)
- Production monitoring + audits (to catch long-tail failures)
Think of it like unit tests + integration tests + observability-except for an agent that plans, calls tools, and works with messy context.
Why agents need evals (more than chatbots)
Agents are not “just chat.” Instead, they:
- call tools (APIs, databases, browsers, CRMs)
- execute multi-step plans
- depend on context (RAG, memory, long documents)
- have real-world blast radius (wrong tool action = real incident)
Therefore, your evals must cover tool correctness, policy compliance, and workflow success-not only “did it write a nice answer?”
Metrics that matter: success, reliability, cost, safety
Core outcome metrics
- Task success rate (binary or graded)
- Step success (where it fails: plan, retrieve, tool-call, final synthesis)
- Groundedness (are claims supported by citations / tool output?)
Reliability + quality metrics
- Consistency across runs (variance with temperature, retries)
- Instruction hierarchy compliance (system > developer > user)
- Format adherence (valid JSON/schema, required fields present)
Operational metrics
- Latency (p50/p95 end-to-end)
- Cost per successful task (tokens + tool calls)
- Tool-call budget (how often agents “thrash”)
Safety metrics
- Prompt injection susceptibility (tool misuse, exfil attempts)
- Data leakage (PII in logs/output)
- Policy violations (disallowed content/actions)
Offline evals: datasets, golden tasks, and scoring
The highest ROI practice is building a small eval set that mirrors reality: 50-200 tasks from your product. For example, start with the top workflows and the most expensive failures.
Step 1: Create “golden tasks”
Golden tasks are the agent equivalent of regression tests. Each task includes:
- input prompt + context
- tool stubs / fixtures (fake but realistic tool responses)
- expected outcome (pass criteria)
Step 2: Build a scoring rubric (human + automated)
Start simple with a 1-5 rubric per dimension. Example:
Score each run (1-5):
1) Task success
2) Tool correctness (right tool, right arguments)
3) Groundedness (claims match tool output)
4) Safety/policy compliance
5) Format adherence (JSON/schema)
Return:
- scores
- failure_reason
- suggested fixStep 3: Add adversarial tests
Enterprises get burned by edge cases. Add tests for:
- prompt injection inside retrieved docs
- tool timeouts and partial failures
- long context truncation
- conflicting instructions
Production monitoring: traces, audits, and alerts
Offline evals won’t catch everything. In production, therefore, add:
- Tracing: capture the plan, tool calls, and intermediate reasoning outputs (where allowed).
- Tool-call audits: log tool name + arguments + responses (redact PII).
- Alerts: spikes in failure rate, cost per task, latency, or policy violations.
As a result, production becomes a data pipeline: failures turn into new eval cases.
3 implementation paths (simple → enterprise)
Path A: Lightweight (solo/early stage)
- 50 golden tasks in JSONL
- manual review + rubric scoring
- run weekly or before releases
Path B: Team-ready (CI evals)
- run evals on every PR that changes prompts/tools
- track p95 latency + cost per success
- store traces + replay failures
Path C: Enterprise (governed agents)
- role-based access to logs and prompts
- redaction + retention policies
- approval workflows for high-risk tools
- audit trails for compliance
A practical checklist for week 1
- Pick 3 core workflows and extract 50 tasks from them.
- Define success criteria + rubrics.
- Stub tool outputs for deterministic tests.
- Run baseline on your current agent and record metrics.
- Add 10 adversarial tests (prompt injection, tool failures).
FAQ
How many eval cases do I need?
Start with 50-200 real tasks. You can get strong signal quickly. Expand based on production failures.
Should I use LLM-as-a-judge?
Yes, but don’t rely on it blindly. Use structured rubrics, spot-check with humans, and keep deterministic checks (schema validation, tool correctness) wherever possible.
Leave a Reply