---

name: "llm-evals" description: >- Use when validating, benchmarking, or monitoring LLM application performance. Keywords: RAG evaluation, LLM-as-a-judge, CI/CD gating, trajectory scoring, test suites, prompt quality.

LLM Evaluation & Validation Framework

Overview

The llm-evals skill provides a systematic framework for evaluating and monitoring Large Language Model (LLM) applications throughout the development lifecycle. It bridges the gap between ad-hoc testing and production-grade reliability by implementing rigorous evaluation pipelines, metric-driven gating, and dataset versioning.

When To Use

• Setting up automated evaluation pipelines for LLM chains.
• Developing or refining RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems.
• Preparing LLM applications for production deployment.
• Investigating performance regressions in complex, multi-step agent trajectories.
• Defining custom rubrics for LLM-as-a-Judge scenarios.

Core Concepts

• Trajectory-Level Evaluation: Scoring intermediate reasoning steps, tool choices, and argument precision, moving beyond just final output metrics.
• LLM-as-a-Judge: Using capable models (e.g., GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) as automated judges to score outputs based on user-defined rubrics.
• Metric Tiers:
  • Unit: Single prompt/completion pairs.
  • Integration: Individual chains or multi-step logic.
  • System: End-to-end user intent fulfillment evaluation.
• Golden Datasets: Version-controlled suites containing ground-truth, negative test cases, and edge cases to ensure consistent benchmarks.
• Calibration: Ensuring LLM judges align with human grading, including inter-rater reliability checks.

Workflow

1. Dataset Curation: Create and version control evaluation suites using JSON/YAML formats, incorporating synthetic failure injections.
2. Metric Definition: Define evaluation criteria (e.g., faithfulness, relevancy, G-Eval) using established frameworks.
3. Execution: Run evaluations locally or in CI environments using tools like promptfoo or deepeval.
4. Analysis: Review evaluation reports to identify bottlenecks or high-error clusters.
5. CI/CD Integration: Incorporate gating steps in deployment pipelines to automatically block commits failing established regression thresholds.
6. Continuous Monitoring: Shift evaluation metrics into production monitoring (e.g., Langfuse) to track drift.

Key Patterns

• G-Eval Implementation: Define specific rubrics in code, providing chain-of-thought instructions to the judge model.
• Negative Case Injection: Always include scenarios where the model SHOULD refuse to answer or identify missing context.
• Pipeline Gating Example:

  # promptfoo.yaml
  prompts: [prompt.txt]
  providers: [openai:gpt-4o]
  tests:
    - vars: {query: "..."}
      assert:
        - type: llm-rubric
          value: "response must accurately cite the provided context"
        - type: g-eval
          criteria: "conciseness"
  

• Trajectory Scoring: Log intermediate tool call history and validate against expected sequences.

Quality Gates

• Regression Thresholds: Strict pass/fail criteria on defined metrics (e.g., Faithfulness > 0.85).
• Inter-rater Reliability: Ensure judge model scores correlate highly (Pearson/Spearman > 0.7) with human samples.
• Coverage: Evaluation suite must cover 100% of defined edge cases before major version releases.
• Latency Constraints: Evaluation must complete within acceptable CI time-windows (e.g., < 10 minutes for full test suites).

References

• DeepEval - Unit testing for LLMs.
• Promptfoo - Command-line tool for test and evaluate LLM prompts.
• Langfuse - Open-source observability and analytics for LLM apps.
• Ragas - RAG evaluation metrics (Faithfulness, Relevancy, Context Precision/Recall).