Advanced
Choosing the Evaluator: Code Checks, LLM Judges and Human Review
Every failure type needs an evaluator whose rule names it. Failures visible in the final state or the trace get a code check, failures visible only in the meaning of the text get a validated LLM judge with one binary criterion, and failures neither can express go to sampled human review until someone writes a rule. Mapping types to evaluators explicitly is how you find the failure nobody is checking.
Get full Premium access · ₹2,000 / $25
Every answer, concept and course, every paper breakdown, all published video lessons, hands-on FDE Lab missions, Premium PDF guides and companion files, the full practice-test bank and work-sample downloads. Referral Premium excludes guide PDFs and their companion files.
6 months · One payment · No auto-renewal
Study alongside free video lessons.
Related course lessons
Related concepts
Practise this in questions
RAG & Agent System DesignYour agent has eight known failure types. For each, do you block it inline, measure it offline or send it to a person? →hard · PremiumLLM & GenAI FundamentalsYour LLM judge agrees with human labels 94% of the time, and the team wants to make it the release gate. Do you? →hard · PremiumRAG & Agent System DesignDesign a simulated-customer regression suite for a support agent in production. What does it catch, what does it miss, how big must it be? →hard · PremiumRAG & Agent System DesignBuild the eval for a text-to-SQL feature over a customer's warehouse: what is in the golden set, what is the metric, how many cases? →hard · PremiumSystem Design & Production EngineeringDesign tracing for a multi-step agent where the failures are silent. The run returns a plausible answer that is wrong. →hard · PremiumMLOps & ML EngineeringA contract specifies 95% resolution accuracy and a $0.50 cost-per-resolution cap for an agent. Design the eval suite and the go/no-go. →hard · Premium