AI Engineering Active Concepts #011 — Agent Evaluation: Measuring Whether AI Workflows Actually Succeed

AI ENGINEERING — ACTIVE CONCEPTS & PRACTICES | #011

Agent Evaluation: Measuring Whether AI Workflows Actually Succeed

Chapter 2: Engineering AI Applications and Agents

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

The Big Idea: Agent evaluation measures whether an AI workflow completes its intended task correctly, reliably, safely, and efficiently.

Fluent responses and successful tool calls do not necessarily demonstrate successful task completion.

Engineering question: What evidence proves that an AI agent accomplished the intended business outcome?

Contents

1. Why Agent Evaluation Matters
2. UNDERSTAND — The Concept
3. CONNECT — AI Engineering Relationships
4. Evaluation Architecture
5. APPLY — Enterprise Procurement Agent
6. Worked Example: Evaluating 100 Workflows
7. Engineering Decisions and Trade-offs
8. Active Industry Practices
9. ACCOMPLISH — Practical Exercise
10. Student and Practitioner Project
11. Check Your Understanding
12. Active Connections
13. References and Further Reading

1. Why Agent Evaluation Matters

Imagine a procurement AI agent assigned to investigate delayed purchase orders and recommend recovery actions.

During testing, it successfully calls the required tools, produces professional reports, and appears to follow the intended workflow.

But closer inspection reveals that some recommendations are based on outdated inventory, some approvals are missing, and several completed tasks were reported incorrectly.

The agent may look effective without being operationally reliable.

The success of an AI agent must be evaluated against the intended outcome, not merely the quality of its generated response.

2. UNDERSTAND — The Concept

What is agent evaluation?

Agent evaluation is the systematic assessment of how well an AI agent or agentic workflow performs defined tasks under specified conditions.

It examines the final outcome, intermediate decisions, tool interactions, operational constraints, and failure behavior.

Five evaluation dimensions

Dimension	Key Question
Correctness	Did the agent produce the right result?
Reliability	Does it succeed consistently across relevant cases?
Efficiency	How much time and cost does execution require?
Safety	Did it respect permissions and operational boundaries?
Usefulness	Did the outcome help accomplish the real task?

Three levels of evaluation

Component evaluation: Tests individual operations such as retrieval, classification, and tool selection.

Trajectory evaluation: Examines the sequence of steps, tool calls, decisions, and state transitions.

Outcome evaluation: Determines whether the overall task was completed correctly.

Evaluation versus monitoring

Evaluation determines whether a system meets defined criteria.

Monitoring observes its behavior during operation.

Production traces and feedback can supply evidence for ongoing evaluation, but monitoring alone does not establish correctness.

3. CONNECT — AI Engineering Relationships

Concept	Connection to Evaluation
Context Engineering	Tests whether the model receives relevant information
Retrieval Engineering	Measures relevance, coverage, and evidence quality
Structured Outputs	Tests schema adherence and data accuracy
Tool Calling	Evaluates tool selection and argument correctness
MCP	Tests external capability discovery and invocation
Agent Orchestration	Evaluates workflow progression and recovery
Observability	Supplies execution traces and operational signals
AI Governance	Defines accountability, safety, and approval requirements
Token Economics	Measures execution costs and efficiency

Active connection: Evaluation turns the technical capabilities studied in earlier lessons into measurable engineering performance.

4. Evaluation Architecture

Define Intended Task and Success Criteria

↓

Build Representative Test Cases

↓

Execute Agent Workflow

↓

Capture Outputs and Execution Traces

↓

Apply Deterministic and Judgment-Based Checks

↓

Analyze Failures and Performance

↓

Improve and Re-Evaluate

Step 1 — Define success

Specify observable completion conditions, acceptable errors, and prohibited actions before testing.

Step 2 — Construct evaluation cases

Include normal cases, edge cases, ambiguous requests, incomplete data, tool failures, and authorization scenarios.

Step 3 — Run the workflow

Execute the system against controlled inputs using representative tools or simulated environments.

Step 4 — Capture evidence

Record final outputs, tool calls, execution state, latency, cost, and relevant decisions.

Step 5 — Score results

Use exact checks where objective answers exist and carefully designed human or model-based judgments where interpretation is required.

Step 6 — Diagnose failures

Determine whether failures originated in retrieval, planning, tool use, reasoning, authorization, or workflow execution.

Step 7 — Improve and retest

Repeat evaluations after changes and check for regressions in previously successful cases.

5. APPLY — Enterprise Procurement Agent

Scenario: Evaluating Purchase Order Recovery

A manufacturing organization uses an AI agent to identify delayed purchase orders and recommend recovery actions.

The system can retrieve order records, inspect alternative stock, examine procurement policies, and prepare approval requests.

What should be evaluated?

Evaluation Area	Example Test
Order retrieval	Did the agent identify the correct purchase order?
Inventory accuracy	Did it use current, authorized inventory data?
Recommendation	Is the proposed recovery action feasible?
Policy compliance	Did it follow procurement constraints?
Approval handling	Did it pause before restricted operations?
Execution reporting	Did it distinguish proposed and completed actions?
Failure handling	Did it recover or escalate appropriately?

Why end-to-end evaluation matters

A system may retrieve the correct order and select the correct tool yet recommend an invalid stock transfer.

Conversely, it may produce a correct recommendation but fail to obtain mandatory approval.

Evaluation must consider the complete workflow and its operational requirements.

6. Worked Example: Evaluating 100 Workflows

Consider the following fictional test results for a procurement agent.

Measure	Illustrative Result
Total test cases	100
Correct final outcomes	82
Correct tool selection	94
Correct tool arguments	90
Approval violations	2
Average execution time	18 seconds
Average estimated execution cost	$0.06

Assume each case contributes one binary result to each applicable measure, and all 100 cases are eligible for the listed accuracy checks.

Task success rate

Task Success Rate =
Successful Cases / Total Cases × 100

= 82 / 100 × 100
= 82%

Tool selection accuracy

Tool Selection Accuracy =
Correct Selections / Evaluated Cases × 100

= 94 / 100 × 100
= 94%

Approval violation rate

Approval Violation Rate =
Cases with Violations / Total Cases × 100

= 2 / 100 × 100
= 2%

For production evaluation, approval violations should also be measured against the subset of cases where approval requirements actually apply.

Interpretation

The agent selects tools correctly in most cases, but its final task-success rate is lower.

This indicates that tool selection alone does not explain overall performance.

More importantly, two approval violations indicate a control failure requiring investigation. A high average success rate cannot compensate for unauthorized consequential actions.

Engineering conclusion

The system requires root-cause analysis, stronger approval enforcement, and targeted regression tests before its suitability for production can be established.

7. Engineering Decisions and Trade-offs

Decision	Benefit	Trade-off
Exact-match scoring	Repeatable and objective	May reject valid alternatives
Human evaluation	Contextual judgment	Time and reviewer variability
LLM-as-judge	Scalable qualitative assessment	Bias and grading errors
Simulated environments	Safe and repeatable tests	May differ from production
Production feedback	Real-world relevance	Noise and incomplete ground truth
Trace-level scoring	Detailed diagnosis	Higher evaluation complexity
End-to-end scoring	Measures task completion	May obscure root causes

Important evaluation risks

• Unrepresentative test datasets
• Ambiguous or incorrect reference answers
• Overreliance on subjective grading
• Data leakage between development and test sets
• Ignoring rare but severe failures
• Confusing fluent explanations with correct outcomes
• Failing to retest after changes
• Using averages that conceal critical failure cases

Recommended practices

• Define success criteria before implementation.
• Use representative and adversarial test cases.
• Combine deterministic checks with calibrated human judgment.
• Capture execution traces.
• Separate quality, safety, latency, and cost measures.
• Track performance by scenario and failure category.
• Maintain regression test suites.
• Investigate critical failures independently of aggregate scores.

Evaluation quality depends not only on the metric but also on the relevance of the test cases, the validity of the reference answers, and the consequences of failure.

8. Active Industry Practices

Established practices

• Task-based benchmark datasets
• Unit and integration testing for tools
• Human review of model outputs
• Automated regression testing
• Latency and cost measurement
• Failure classification and analysis

Evolving agent evaluation practices

• Trajectory and trace evaluation
• LLM-assisted grading
• Simulation-based agent testing
• Multi-turn and multi-step task evaluation
• Continuous evaluation from production feedback
• Risk-weighted evaluation of agent actions

Relevant technologies

Engineering teams may use OpenAI Evals and agent evaluation tooling, LangSmith, MLflow, or custom test harnesses depending on their requirements.

Evaluation tools do not replace the need for clearly defined business success criteria and valid test data.

Industry relevance

Agent evaluation is important in enterprise automation, customer support, software development, financial operations, procurement, research assistants, and other systems where AI-generated decisions influence operational outcomes.

Practice status: Established software testing principles combined with rapidly developing agent-specific evaluation methods.

Reviewed: November 2026.

9. ACCOMPLISH — Practical Exercise

Exercise: Evaluate a Procurement Agent

Consider a fictional agent that investigates delayed purchase orders.

Task: Recommend a recovery action.

Purchase order: PO-2056

Required quantity: 500 units

Alternative stock: 350 units

Approval: Required for stock transfer

Your tasks

1. Define what successful completion means.
2. Identify the required evidence.
3. Write five normal test cases.
4. Write three failure or edge cases.
5. Define a scoring rubric.
6. Identify critical safety checks.
7. Specify the execution information to record.
8. Describe how failures should be classified.
9. Recommend a release decision based on the results.

Reusable AI-assisted prompt

Act as an AI engineering evaluation specialist.

Design an evaluation plan for a
fictional procurement AI agent.

The agent:
- Retrieves purchase-order information
- Checks alternative inventory
- Recommends recovery actions
- Requests approval when required
- Reports workflow outcomes

Provide:
1. Task success criteria.
2. Representative test scenarios.
3. Edge and failure cases.
4. Expected results.
5. Tool-use evaluation criteria.
6. Workflow trace checks.
7. Safety and approval tests.
8. Cost and latency metrics.
9. Failure classification.
10. Release-readiness recommendation.

Distinguish simulated test results
from real measured performance.

Accomplishment: Create an evaluation plan that measures whether an AI agent accomplishes its intended task safely and reliably.

10. Student and Practitioner Project

Mini Project: Build an Agent Evaluation Harness

Objective: Develop a small evaluation system for a fictional procurement agent.

Project requirements

1. Define 20 representative test cases.
2. Create expected outcomes for each case.
3. Implement or simulate an agent workflow.
4. Capture tool calls and execution results.
5. Score final task completion.
6. Check tool selection and argument correctness.
7. Test approval compliance.
8. Measure execution latency and estimated cost.
9. Classify failed cases.
10. Produce a performance report and improvement plan.

Suggested evaluation scorecard

Metric	Purpose
Task success rate	Measures correct final outcomes
Tool selection accuracy	Measures correct tool choice
Argument accuracy	Measures correctness of tool inputs
Policy compliance	Measures adherence to operational rules
Recovery success	Measures handling of failures
Average latency	Measures execution speed
Average cost	Measures resource efficiency
Critical failure count	Tracks severe errors independently

Project deliverable: A test dataset, evaluation harness or design, execution traces, scorecard, failure analysis, and engineering recommendations.

11. Check Your Understanding

1. What is agent evaluation?
2. Why is fluent output insufficient evidence of success?
3. How do component, trajectory, and outcome evaluations differ?
4. What is the difference between evaluation and monitoring?
5. When is deterministic scoring preferable?
6. What are the limitations of LLM-as-judge evaluation?
7. Why must critical failures be examined separately?
8. How would you evaluate an agent before production deployment?

Reflection: If an AI agent achieves 98% task success but occasionally performs unauthorized actions, should it be considered production-ready? What additional controls or evidence would be required?

12. Active Connections

• #001 — Context Engineering
• #002 — Token Economics
• #003 — Embeddings in Practice
• #004 — Retrieval Engineering
• #005 — Chunking and Reranking
• #006 — Context Management
• #007 — Structured Outputs
• #008 — Tool Calling
• #009 — Model Context Protocol (MCP)
• #010 — Agent Orchestration

Coming next — #012: Observability and Tracing: Understanding What AI Systems Actually Do.

13. References and Further Reading

1. OpenAI — Evaluation Guides
2. OpenAI Evals — GitHub
3. LangSmith — Evaluation Documentation
4. MLflow — GenAI Evaluation and Monitoring
5. NIST AI Risk Management Framework

Evaluation frameworks, metrics, and tooling evolve. Consult current documentation and validate scoring methods against the requirements of each application.

---

Final Takeaway

An AI agent is not successful because it completed a sequence of steps. It is successful when evidence demonstrates that it achieved the intended outcome correctly, safely, and reliably.

AI Engineering — Active Concepts & Practices
Active Concept #011 — Agent Evaluation

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

Understand → Connect → Apply → Accomplish

AI Engineering Living Glossary #007 — Evals: How AI Engineers Know Their Systems Actually Work

AI ENGINEERING | LIVING GLOSSARY | #007

EVALS — AI EVALUATIONS

How AI Engineers Know Whether Their Systems Actually Work

Chapter 2: Engineering AI for Reliability

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

An AI assistant performs brilliantly in a demonstration.

It answers questions confidently, retrieves documents, and generates professional responses.

But when employees begin using it, some answers are incorrect, some citations are misleading, and some requests take too long.

The demonstration showed what the system could do. It did not establish how reliably the system performs.

How can engineers distinguish an impressive demonstration from a dependable AI application?

The answer begins with Evals.

Engineering insight: Evals transform expectations about AI performance into measurable evidence. They help engineers identify failures, compare alternatives, and make informed deployment decisions.

Contents

1. What Are Evals?
2. Why Evals Matter
3. Traditional Testing vs AI Evals
4. Types of Evals
5. Important Evaluation Metrics
6. The Evaluation Workflow
7. Industry Applications
8. Engineering Decisions
9. Practical Industry Case
10. Try It Yourself
11. Connected Glossary Terms
12. Living Update
13. Key Takeaway
14. References

1. What Are Evals?

Evals is the commonly used abbreviation for evaluations in AI engineering.

AI evaluations are systematic processes for measuring the behavior, quality, and performance of AI models and applications against defined criteria.

An evaluation can examine:

• Whether an answer is factually correct
• Whether it addresses the user's request
• Whether it follows specified instructions
• Whether it is supported by available evidence
• Whether it respects safety and business constraints
• Whether the application completes the intended task
• How much time and money the operation requires

Evals may use automated checks, reference answers, human reviewers, model-based graders, or combinations of these methods.

They can measure a model, an individual component, or an entire application workflow.

Key distinction: A benchmark reports performance on a defined test. An evaluation program determines whether the system is suitable for the tasks and conditions that matter to its users.

↑ Back to contents

2. Why Evals Matter

Generative AI systems can produce fluent outputs even when the underlying information is incomplete or incorrect.

They may also behave differently across inputs, model versions, prompt revisions, and changing external data.

Consequently, engineers need more than successful examples.

Without systematic evals	With systematic evals
Performance is judged through demonstrations.	Performance is measured on representative cases.
Failures are discovered unpredictably.	Known failure categories can be tested.
Prompt changes rely on intuition.	Prompt versions can be compared.
Deployment decisions are subjective.	Decisions can use explicit acceptance criteria.
Quality may deteriorate unnoticed.	Monitoring can detect changes in measured behavior.

Evals do not eliminate failures. They provide evidence about known and tested risks, and help engineers discover new ones.

↑ Back to contents

3. Traditional Testing vs AI Evals

Traditional software testing often checks whether a system produces an expected result for a defined input.

For example:

Input: 2 + 3
Expected output: 5
Actual output: 5
Result: PASS

Generative AI outputs are frequently open-ended. Several different responses may be acceptable.

Consider a customer asking:

"Can I claim hotel expenses during a business trip?"

A useful response might take different forms while still meeting requirements for factual correctness, relevance, tone, and policy compliance.

Therefore, AI evaluations may combine:

• Exact-match checks for deterministic outputs
• Schema and format validation
• Semantic or rubric-based grading
• Evidence-grounding checks
• Human assessment
• Task-completion measurements

Traditional tests remain important. AI systems often need both conventional software tests and probabilistic or judgment-based evaluations.

↑ Back to contents

4. Types of Evals

A. Functional evaluations

Measure whether the application performs its intended task correctly.

B. Grounding and factuality evaluations

Check whether generated claims are supported by appropriate evidence and whether factual answers are correct.

C. Instruction-following evaluations

Check whether the model follows required formats, constraints, and task instructions.

D. Safety and security evaluations

Test behavior involving unsafe requests, sensitive information, prompt injection, and policy boundaries.

E. Retrieval evaluations

Measure whether a retrieval system finds relevant information, independently of whether the language model produces a good final answer.

F. Human evaluations

Use qualified reviewers to assess usefulness, accuracy, clarity, and other criteria that automated checks may miss.

G. Operational evaluations

Measure latency, cost, reliability, resource usage, and production performance.

H. End-to-end evaluations

Measure whether the complete application achieves the intended user outcome.

Engineering principle: Evaluate both the individual components and the end-to-end experience. A component can perform well while the overall workflow fails.

↑ Back to contents

5. Important Evaluation Metrics

Metric	What it measures
Accuracy	Proportion of evaluated cases answered correctly under defined criteria.
Precision	Proportion of predicted positive cases that are correct.
Recall	Proportion of actual positive cases successfully identified.
Faithfulness	Whether generated claims are supported by supplied evidence.
Relevance	How well an output addresses the requested task.
Task success rate	Proportion of tasks completed according to defined success criteria.
Format validity	Proportion of outputs meeting required schemas or structures.
Latency	Time required to produce a response or complete a task.
Cost per task	Resources or monetary expense associated with completing a task.

Metrics must match the application. A classification system, RAG assistant, and coding agent require different evaluation designs.

Scores from automated or model-based graders should be checked against human judgments and known examples. A numerical score is not automatically an objective measure of quality.

↑ Back to contents

6. The Evaluation Workflow

Define the Task
       |
       v
Specify Success Criteria
       |
       v
Prepare Representative Test Cases
       |
       v
Run the AI System
       |
       v
Grade and Measure Results
       |
       v
Analyze Failure Patterns
       |
       v
Improve the System
       |
       v
Retest and Monitor

A useful evaluation dataset should include more than easy examples.

• Typical user requests
• Ambiguous inputs
• Missing information
• Conflicting evidence
• Outdated documents
• Boundary and exception cases
• Adversarial or malicious inputs where relevant

Engineers should also maintain separate development and held-out evaluation cases to reduce the risk of optimizing only for familiar examples.

Whenever possible, record model versions, prompt versions, test data, scoring methods, and relevant configuration settings so that comparisons are reproducible.

↑ Back to contents

7. Industry Applications

AI application	What engineers evaluate
Customer support assistant	Correct answers, policy compliance, escalation, and satisfaction.
RAG knowledge assistant	Retrieval quality, answer support, citations, and completeness.
AI coding assistant	Test passing, functional correctness, maintainability, and security.
Document extraction	Field accuracy, omissions, and output validity.
AI agents	Task completion, tool correctness, permissions, and recovery from errors.
Business analytics	Calculation accuracy, evidence quality, and decision usefulness.

For high-stakes applications, evaluation should include domain expertise and appropriate human oversight.

↑ Back to contents

8. What Must an AI Engineer Decide?

A. What does success mean?

Translate business requirements into measurable acceptance criteria.

B. Which cases represent real use?

Build datasets that reflect users, tasks, difficult cases, and relevant operating conditions.

C. What should be graded automatically?

Use deterministic checks for objectively verifiable properties such as schema validity or test execution.

D. When are human reviewers necessary?

Include human assessment when judgments require domain knowledge, nuance, or contextual understanding.

E. Can a model grade another model?

Model-based graders can help scale evaluation, but their judgments may contain bias, inconsistency, and errors. Validate them against trusted examples.

F. How will improvements be compared?

Use consistent datasets, scoring criteria, and configurations. Investigate both improvements and regressions.

G. What are the deployment thresholds?

Set application-specific acceptance criteria, including critical failure conditions that cannot be offset by high average scores.

H. What happens after deployment?

Monitor quality and operational indicators, collect permitted feedback, investigate incidents, and update evaluation datasets.

Engineering caution: An evaluation score is evidence, not proof of universal reliability. Untested scenarios and changing real-world conditions remain sources of risk.

↑ Back to contents

9. Practical Industry Case: Enterprise Policy Assistant

A company has built an AI assistant that answers employee questions about travel and reimbursement policies.

During demonstrations, the assistant appears accurate and helpful. Before wider deployment, the engineering team needs evidence of reliability.

Engineering approach

1. Define the tasks the assistant is expected to perform.
2. Prepare a set of questions based on approved policies.
3. Include current, outdated, conflicting, and missing-policy scenarios.
4. Establish reference answers and supporting document passages.
5. Test whether the retrieval system finds the correct evidence.
6. Check the factual correctness of generated responses.
7. Verify whether citations support the stated claims.
8. Test whether unsupported questions trigger appropriate uncertainty or escalation.
9. Measure response latency and cost.
10. Review failures and identify their causes.
11. Revise retrieval, prompts, or application controls.
12. Rerun evaluations before deployment.

Illustrative evaluation results

The following figures are fictional teaching examples, not measured industry results.

Measure	Baseline	After revision
Correct answers	78%	91%
Claims supported by evidence	72%	94%
Appropriate escalation	65%	89%

These figures suggest improvement on the evaluated cases, but they do not establish production readiness. The team must also examine sample size, uncertainty, critical failures, security, and real-world representativeness.

Industry insight: Evals help teams move from asking "Does the assistant look good?" to asking "Under which conditions does it succeed, fail, or require human intervention?"

↑ Back to contents

10. Try It Yourself

Mini Project: Build Your First AI Evaluation

Objective: Design a simple evaluation that measures an AI assistant's ability to answer questions from an approved document.

1. Create a fictional one-page company travel policy.
2. Prepare ten questions about the policy.
3. Include straightforward, ambiguous, and unanswerable questions.
4. Write reference answers and identify supporting passages.
5. Ask an AI model to answer using the policy.
6. Record the outputs.
7. Score each response for factual correctness, evidence support, and appropriate uncertainty.
8. Calculate the percentage of cases passing each criterion.
9. Identify recurring failure patterns.
10. Improve the prompt or retrieval process.
11. Repeat the same evaluation and compare results.
12. Test the revised system on several new questions not used during improvement.

Suggested scoring rubric

Score	Meaning
2	Correct and adequately supported.
1	Partially correct or incomplete.
0	Incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.

For questions that cannot be answered from the document, an appropriate expression of uncertainty can receive a score of 2.

Reflection questions

• Which questions caused failures?
• Did the model invent unsupported information?
• Were citations accurate?
• Did prompt changes improve performance on new cases?
• Which failures would be unacceptable in production?
• What additional evidence would you need before deployment?

Success criterion: Produce a repeatable evaluation report showing test cases, scoring criteria, results, and observed limitations.

↑ Back to contents

11. Connected Glossary Terms

• Token: Influences evaluation costs and response budgets.
• Embedding: Can be evaluated for retrieval relevance.
• Vector Database: Retrieval performance can be measured independently.
• RAG: Requires retrieval, grounding, and answer-quality evaluations.
• Context Window: Long-context performance can be tested systematically.
• Prompt Engineering: Prompt versions can be compared through evals.
• Hallucination: Unsupported outputs are an important evaluation target.
• Observability: Production signals help identify new evaluation needs.

Previous lessons:

• #001 — Token
• #002 — Embedding
• #003 — Vector Database
• #004 — RAG
• #005 — Context Window
• #006 — Prompt Engineering

Next lesson: #008 — Hallucination: When AI Generates Unsupported Answers.

↑ Back to contents

12. Living Update

Editorial baseline: November 2026

Evaluation practices are evolving alongside more capable models, AI agents, tool-using systems, and increasingly complex workflows.

Important directions to monitor include:

• Automated evaluation pipelines
• Model-based grading with calibrated rubrics
• Agent trajectory and tool-use evaluations
• Realistic task-completion benchmarks
• Adversarial and security evaluations
• Multimodal evaluations
• Production feedback incorporated into test suites
• Continuous evaluation during model and prompt updates

The fundamental engineering principle remains stable: evaluation methods must be appropriate to the intended application and supported by trustworthy evidence.

Living Glossary note: Update evaluation methods as new system capabilities and failure patterns emerge.

↑ Back to contents

13. Key Takeaway

Evals convert AI performance from an impression into something engineers can measure, investigate, compare, and improve.

A successful demonstration is the beginning of engineering confidence, not its conclusion.

Think like an AI engineer: What evidence would convince us that this system is reliable enough for its intended users and operating conditions?

↑ Back to contents

14. References and Further Reading

• OpenAI — Evaluations Guide
• LangChain — Documentation and Evaluation Resources
• Ragas — Evaluation Documentation
• NIST — AI Risk Management Framework
• OWASP — Generative AI Security Project

↑ Back to contents

AI Engineering — Living Glossary

One Term. One Industry Connection. One Practical Insight. One Action.

AIYING — Accomplishing with AI

Chapter 2 | Episode #007 | EVALS

↑ Return to top