v1truv1us Default output: return only the result, blockers, and required evidence. Omit preambles, process narration, repeated context, confidence scores, and follow-up offers. Use at most five bullets unless a required artifact or schema needs more.
Eval Harness
Overview
A systematic framework for evaluating agent performance. Measures accuracy, efficiency, and reliability across defined test scenarios. Enables data-driven decisions about agent quality and improvement.
When to Use
- Before deploying agent changes to production
- Comparing different agent configurations
- Identifying weaknesses in agent behavior
- Tracking agent quality over time
- Validating prompt improvements
Evaluation Dimensions
1. Accuracy
Does the agent produce correct outputs?
| Metric | Measurement | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Task completion | % of tasks completed correctly | > 90% |
| Code correctness | % of generated code that compiles and passes tests | > 85% |
| Instruction following | % of instructions followed exactly | > 95% |
2. Efficiency
Does the agent use resources well?
| Metric | Measurement | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Token usage | Tokens consumed per task | Minimize |
| Tool calls | Number of tool calls per task | Minimize |
| Time to completion | Wall clock time per task | Minimize |
3. Reliability
Does the agent behave consistently?
| Metric | Measurement | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Reproducibility | Same input → same output | > 95% |
| Error rate | % of runs that fail | < 5% |
| Recovery rate | % of errors recovered from | > 80% |
Evaluation Process
Step 1: Define Test Cases
Create test cases that cover:
- Happy path (expected behavior)
- Edge cases (unusual inputs)
- Error cases (invalid inputs)
- Ambiguous cases (unclear requirements)
Step 2: Run Evaluation
Execute each test case and record:
- Input provided
- Expected output
- Actual output
- Pass/fail
- Token usage
- Time taken
- Tool calls made
Step 3: Analyze Results
Calculate metrics:
- Overall pass rate
- Per-category pass rates
- Token efficiency
- Error patterns
- Improvement areas
Step 4: Report Findings
## Eval Results
### Summary
- Test cases: N
- Pass rate: X%
- Average tokens: N
- Average time: Xs
### By Category
| Category | Pass Rate | Issues |
|----------|-----------|--------|
| Accuracy | X% | [list] |
| Efficiency | X% | [list] |
| Reliability | X% | [list] |
### Recommendations
1. [Specific improvement]
2. [Specific improvement]
Benchmark Scenarios
Code Generation
Input: "Write a function that sorts an array using quicksort"
Expected: Correct implementation with proper edge cases
Metrics: Compiles, passes tests, follows conventions
Code Review
Input: [Code with intentional bugs]
Expected: Identifies all bugs with severity labels
Metrics: Recall (bugs found), Precision (false positives)
Debugging
Input: [Error message + relevant code]
Expected: Correct root cause and fix
Metrics: Accuracy of diagnosis, correctness of fix
Anti-Rationalization Table
| Excuse | Counter |
|---|---|
| "I can tell it's working by looking" | Human judgment is biased and inconsistent. Metrics provide objective measurement. |
| "Evals take too much time" | Automated evals run in parallel. The time investment prevents production failures. |
| "One test case is enough" | Single tests don't reveal patterns. Multiple cases across categories provide confidence. |
| "The agent passed last time" | Regression happens. Regular evals catch quality drift before it reaches production. |