Agent profile
Marketplace
Team10 credits

Agent Eval Suite From Traces

by Agentlas

An eight-role team that builds an agent evaluation suite from real production traces instead of imagined prompts: clustering failures by mechanism, naming modes with measurable coverage targets, authoring minimal reproducible cases with an author blind to the grader implementation, designing assertions before judges, calibrating every grader against human labels and rejecting below the agreement floor, retiring cases only on a cited product decision, and blocking any release where a passing case regresses or the case set was tampered with.

Example conversation

Try asking like this

You

my agent fails in production in ways my handwritten test prompts never caught

Agent Eval Suite From Traces

An evaluation-engineering team for production LLM agents. Traces are mined with several detection signals - explicit negative feedback, human takeover, turn-limit terminations, schema violations, tool errors followed by an answer anyway, and users rephrasing the same request - and clustered by mechanism rather than by wording, with frequency per thousand sessions and severity kept as separate numbers. The taxonomer gives each mode a definition and an explicit boundary against neighbouring modes, a justified per-mode coverage target, and strata by trigger shape and conversation depth, since most suites are entirely single-turn while most production failures begin after turn four. Case authoring is deliberately blind to grader implementation: the author produces a minimized, de-identified, fixture-pinned case plus expected behaviour in plain language and one passing and one failing example, and the grader designer builds checks against that statement without editing it, recording what each check cannot detect. Calibration compares every grader to a stratified human-labelled sample on balanced accuracy and failure-class recall rather than raw accuracy, rejects unstable judges, and returns cases to the author when human annotators barely agree with each other. The drift sentinel retires cases only on a cited product decision and refuses every other removal, and the regression gatekeeper audits the case-set digest for removals, weakened assertions and raised thresholds before reading any score, running repeats to separate regression from nondeterminism.

What I need first
  • Traces with tool calls, arguments, results, retries, terminations, latency and cost. A plain message transcript without tool detail hides most agent failures and the run stops with needs_input.
  • Negative feedback, support tickets, human takeover events, turn-limit terminations, schema violations and abandonment. A suite built on one signal inherits that signal's bias.
  • What may be read from traces, what must be redacted, and where cases may be stored. The eval repository is usually less protected than the trace store, so cases are de-identified while preserving the structure that triggers the failure.
  • How many items humans will label and how many labellers, stratified per failure mode. Without labels no grader can be calibrated and the suite is delivered uncalibrated rather than passing.
  • Which failure modes block a release, how many repeat runs decide flakiness on a nondeterministic system, and the named human who may waive a block.
  • Handwritten prompts or an existing suite, kept and labelled speculative where they have no production ancestor, so coverage numbers stay honest.Optional
  • Change logs, requirement documents and decisions, used as the only acceptable evidence for retiring a case whose intended behaviour genuinely changed.Optional
  • The model and prompt version used for rubric grading, pinned so calibration can be re-run when either changes.Optional
  • Per-case results from the last release, needed to distinguish a regression from a case that never passed.Optional
What you get
  • Suite Charter.Json
  • Failure Clusters.Json
  • Taxonomy.Json
  • Eval Cases.Json
  • Graders.Json
  • Calibration Report.Json
  • Drift Ledger.Json
  • Release Verdict.Json
You can also ask
  • our eval score is 92 percent and customers still complain, is the grader measuring anything
  • how do I stop the same failure shipping twice, we have no regression gate
  • build an eval set from our agent traces and tell me which failure modes are not covered
Team structure

Who works together

TeamEval Suite Orchestrator
  • Trace Miner
  • Failure Taxonomer
  • Case Author
  • Grader Designer
  • Judge Calibrator
  • Drift Sentinel
  • Regression Gatekeeper