53 posts tagged with "evals"

Most teams build their LLM evaluators in the wrong order. They write criteria, then look at data. That inversion is the root cause of miscalibrated evals, and it's almost universal in teams shipping their first AI product. The criteria sound reasonable on paper — "the response should be accurate, helpful, and concise" — but when you apply them to real model outputs, you discover the rubric doesn't match what you actually care about. You end up with an evaluator that grades things you're not measuring and misses failures that matter.

The fix isn't a better rubric. It's a different workflow: look at the data first, define criteria second, and then validate your evaluator against human judgment before trusting it to run unsupervised.

Most teams building LLM systems start with the wrong question. They ask "how do I evaluate this?" before understanding what actually breaks. Then they spend weeks building eval infrastructure that measures the wrong things, achieve 90%+ pass rates immediately, and ship products that users hate. The evaluations weren't wrong—they just weren't measuring failure.

Effective eval engineering isn't primarily about infrastructure. It's about developing a precise, shared understanding of what "good" means for your specific system. The infrastructure is almost incidental. In mature LLM teams, 60–80% of development time goes toward error analysis and evaluation—not feature work. That ratio surprises most engineers until they've shipped a broken model to production and spent a week debugging what went wrong.

Every AI product demo looks great. The model generates something plausible, the stakeholders nod along, and everyone leaves the meeting feeling optimistic. Then the product ships, real users appear, and things start going sideways in ways nobody anticipated. The team scrambles to fix one failure mode, inadvertently creates another, and after weeks of whack-a-mole, the prompt has grown into a 2,000-token monster that nobody fully understands anymore.

The root cause is almost always the same: no evaluation system. Teams that ship reliable AI products build evals early and treat them as infrastructure, not an afterthought. Teams that stall treat evaluation as something to worry about "once the product is more mature." By then, they're already stuck.

Most teams building with LLMs today are repeating mistakes that others made a year ago. The most expensive one is mistaking the model for the product.

After a year of LLM-powered systems shipping into production — codegen tools, document processors, customer-facing assistants, internal knowledge systems — practitioners have accumulated a body of hard-won knowledge that's very different from what the hype cycle suggests. The lessons aren't about which foundation model to choose or whether RAG beats finetuning. They're about the unglamorous work of building reliable systems: how to evaluate output, how to structure workflows, when to invest in infrastructure versus when to keep iterating on prompts, and how to think about differentiation.

This is a synthesis of what that field experience actually shows.

Most teams building AI agents make the same mistake: they start with the evaluation infrastructure before they understand what failure looks like. They instrument dashboards, choose metrics, wire up graders — and then discover their evals are measuring the wrong things entirely. Six weeks in, they have a green scorecard and a broken agent.

The fix is not more tooling. It is a specific sequence of steps that grounds your evaluation in reality before you automate anything. Here is that sequence.