All services

Turn a feeling into a number you can ship against.

Without evals, every prompt change is a guess and every regression is found by a customer. We build a labelled set from your actual traffic rather than invented examples, pick metrics that match the task instead of a generic score, and wire the suite into CI so a quality drop blocks the release. The point is not a dashboard; it is that a bad change stops before it ships.

40%98%
Five-part template adherence
Weekshours
ESG extraction cycle
80–90%
Less time per full profile

Built for production, not the demo.

01 / EVALS

Eval suites and regression testing, for teams shipping on opinion instead of a number.

For teams shipping on opinion. A labelled set from your real traffic, metrics that match the task, and a gate in CI so a quality drop blocks a release.

Usually shipped with

  • Production AI engineering
  • AI observability
  • Fine-tuning

Not a bundle to buy. Whichever you start from, the engagement covers what the build actually needs.

02 / Scope

What we build.

  • A labelled evaluation set drawn from real traffic, not synthetic prompts
  • Task-appropriate metrics rather than one generic quality score
  • Regression gates in CI, so a quality drop fails the build
  • LLM-as-judge where it holds up, and human review where it does not
  • Drift tracking as models and providers change underneath you
  • Ragas, DeepEval or a harness written for your task, whichever measures the failure you actually have

03 / Outcomes

What you can ship.

  • A number to ship against instead of an opinion
  • Regressions caught before customers find them
  • Model and prompt changes you can compare honestly

04 / Deliverables

Artefacts, not activities.

  • A labelled evaluation setReal inputs with correct outputs, versioned alongside your code.
  • The eval harnessRunnable locally and in CI, with per-metric reporting.
  • A release gateQuality thresholds that fail the build rather than filing a ticket.

05 / Stack

What it is built on.

Harness
Custom eval runners / CI integration / Ragas / DeepEval / Braintrust
Metrics
Field accuracy / Structure adherence / Recall@k
Judging
LLM-as-judge / Human review
Tracking
Drift monitoring / Version comparison / LangSmith

06 / Why us

Numbers from your traffic, not a benchmark

Public benchmarks measure a task you do not have. On Brandiligence, five-part template adherence went from 40% to 98% against a held-out set of the firm's own matters, with strict section checks.

The gate is the deliverable

A dashboard tells you quality dropped. A CI gate stops the release that dropped it. We build the second, because only one of them changes what reaches a customer.

We publish the result when it is bad

An eval that only ever confirms the change was good is not an eval. The comparison is run and reported either way, including when it says the work was not worth it.

A path from your problem to production.

  1. Week 1

    Pull a set from real traffic

    Fifty to two hundred real inputs, labelled with what a correct output looks like. Synthetic prompts measure a system nobody uses.

  2. Week 1-2

    Pick metrics that match the task

    Extraction wants field accuracy; drafting wants structure adherence; retrieval wants recall. A single quality score hides the failure you care about.

  3. Week 2-3

    Gate the release

    The suite runs in CI and blocks a merge when quality drops. An eval nobody enforces is a report nobody reads.

  4. Week 3-6

    Keep it alive

    Providers change models underneath you. The set gets refreshed from new traffic, and drift is tracked rather than discovered.

An uncalibrated judge produces a number nobody can explain.

A versioned suite of cases runs against the whole system — prompt, model, tools and retrieval together, because evaluating the model alone tells you very little about the product. Judges combine deterministic rules, a rubric and a model, and the model judge is itself calibrated against human labels, without which the score drifts for reasons no one can trace. The regression gate lives in CI rather than in a document: a build that scores worse than the last one fails. Production traffic is sampled back into the suite, because the cases worth having are the ones that already went wrong once.

YOUR GOLDEN SETSUITE OWNERSHIPwho may change a caseVERSIONED SUITEcases change, on purposePROMPTMODELTOOLSRETRIEVALthe system under testJUDGESrules · rubric · modelCALIBRATED ON HUMANSor the number driftsWORSE, OR LESS SAFE?REGRESSION GATEin CI, not in a docIT SHIPSTHE BUILD FAILSPRODUCTION TRAFFICSCRUBbefore it becomes a fixturesampled, then scrubbedSCORE, BUILD OVER BUILDEVERY CASE, EVERY BUILD
A banded spectrum of colour resolving into measured steps

Production-proven

Built by engineers who've already shipped this in production.

The questions buyers actually ask.

How many examples do we need?

Fewer than teams expect. Fifty well-chosen real cases beat a thousand synthetic ones, because the fifty contain the failures you actually have.

Can an LLM grade the outputs?

For some tasks, and we validate that it agrees with human judgment before trusting it. Where it does not agree, humans grade and we say so.

What if we have no idea what correct looks like?

Then that is the first problem, and it is worth more than the eval. Without ground truth there is no accuracy number, and the work is faith rather than engineering.

Does this slow our releases down?

It slows down the bad ones. The suite runs in minutes; the regressions it catches would have cost days.

Let's scope your llm evaluation build.

Tell us where you are and what you're trying to ship. We'll come back with a concrete plan, the right engineers, and a path to production, not a generic pitch.