I’ve been building systems with large language models for a while now, and a question keeps me up at night: how do I know if my application is actually getting better? Traditional software testing gives clear answers—a function either returns the right value or it doesn’t. But how do you test something where the “right answer” can be fluid, creative, and subjective? If you’re deploying an LLM application to real users, you need more than just a feeling that the outputs are good. You need proof. That’s what drove me to spend the last few months exploring how to build a robust, production-ready evaluation system. Think of this as the quality control department for your AI. Let’s build it together.
Why is evaluating an LLM so tricky? Imagine you ask a chatbot, “What’s a good light dinner?” A technically correct answer could list foods. A good answer considers dietary preferences, preparation time, and maybe even suggests a recipe. A great answer might ask a clarifying question first. Which one is “correct”? This inherent fuzziness is the core challenge. You’re not just checking for bugs; you’re measuring quality, relevance, safety, and cost, all at once. Without a structured way to measure these things, every change to your prompts or models is a leap of faith.
So, what does a useful evaluation framework look like? It needs to be automated, continuous, and measure what truly matters to your users and your business. It should catch a decline in answer quality before your users do. It should tell you if switching to a newer, cheaper model will hurt performance. This isn’t academic—this is about maintaining trust and reliability in a live product.
The Building Blocks of a Reliable System A robust framework rests on three pillars. First, you need a set of clear, measurable goals. What does “good” mean for your specific application? Is it factual accuracy for a legal assistant? Is it creativity and brand voice for a marketing bot? You must define the metrics that map to your success.
Second, you need a diverse and representative test set. This is your “final exam” for your LLM. It should include typical user questions, edge cases, and known difficult scenarios. This golden dataset never changes for a given test run, allowing you to compare performance over time. How often do you review and update your test questions to match real user behavior?
Third, you need the tools to run the evaluation itself. This is where a platform like LangSmith becomes invaluable. It acts as a central hub for tracing all your LLM calls, logging inputs and outputs, and running evaluators. But LangSmith’s built-in evaluators are just the start. The real power comes from building your own.
Creating Your Own Quality Checks Let’s write a custom evaluator. Suppose you run a customer support bot and need to ensure every answer is not just helpful but also polite. You could create a “Tone Evaluator” using an LLM to judge the output. Here’s a simplified version.
from langchain_openai import ChatOpenAI
from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
class ToneEvaluation(BaseModel):
score: float = Field(description="Politeness score from 0 to 1")
reason: str = Field(description="Brief explanation for the score")
detected_issue: str = Field(description="Any impolite phrases found")
class ToneEvaluator:
def __init__(self):
self.llm = ChatOpenAI(model="gpt-4", temperature=0)
self.structured_llm = self.llm.with_structured_output(ToneEvaluation)
def evaluate(self, agent_response: str) -> dict:
prompt = f"""
Evaluate the politeness of this customer support response.
Score it from 0 (rude) to 1 (exceptionally polite).
Focus on courtesy, empathy, and professional phrasing.
Response: {agent_response}
"""
result = self.structured_llm.invoke(prompt)
return {
"score": result.score,
"passed": result.score > 0.8,
"feedback": result.reason
}
# Example usage
evaluator = ToneEvaluator()
test_response = "Just reboot your system, it's probably user error."
result = evaluator.evaluate(test_response)
print(f"Score: {result['score']}. Passed? {result['passed']}")
# Output might be: Score: 0.3. Passed? FalseThis code creates a focused judge for one specific aspect of quality. You can imagine building a suite of these for accuracy, safety, adherence to guidelines, or even cost-efficiency. Each one gives you a data point.
Bringing It All Together in a Pipeline Single evaluations are useful, but the goal is automation. You need a pipeline that can take your latest application version, run it against your golden dataset, apply all your custom evaluators, and spit out a report. This is your regression testing suite.
Here’s a conceptual flow:
- Trigger: A new prompt template is committed to your code.
- Test Run: Your pipeline deploys this version and feeds it 100 test questions from your golden set.
- Evaluation: For each answer, 5 different evaluators (accuracy, tone, safety, conciseness, cost) spring into action.
- Scoring & Report: The pipeline aggregates the scores. Did the new prompt cause a 10% drop in accuracy? Did it improve conciseness without hurting politeness? The report shows you.
This process turns subjective quality into objective metrics on a dashboard. You can now say, “Version 2.1 has a 92% average accuracy score, up from 88% in 2.0, with no increase in average cost per query.” That’s a powerful statement.
The Human is Still in the Loop Can we automate everything? Not quite. Automated evaluators are great for scale and consistency, but they can miss nuance. The final, critical component is human review. Set up a system where a small percentage of LLM outputs, especially low-scoring ones or random samples, are sent for human assessment. This human feedback does two things: it catches edge cases the automations missed, and it provides new data to improve your automated evaluators themselves. It’s a self-improving cycle.
Building this framework requires upfront work. You must define metrics, curate test data, and write evaluators. But the payoff is immense: confidence. Confidence that your application is reliable. Confidence that you can innovate and improve without breaking what already works. You stop guessing and start optimizing with data.
What aspect of your LLM’s performance are you currently guessing about? Is it user satisfaction, factual reliability, or something else? Building your evaluation framework starts with answering that question. Define it, measure it, and then improve it. The path from a prototype to a production-ready AI application is paved with rigorous evaluation.
If this breakdown of building a trustworthy AI evaluation system was helpful, please share it with a colleague who might be facing the same challenges. I’d love to hear about your experiences or questions in the comments below—what’s the biggest hurdle you’ve faced in testing your LLM applications? Let’s keep the conversation going
As a best-selling author, I invite you to explore my books on Amazon. Don’t forget to follow me on Medium and show your support. Thank you! Your support means the world!
101 Books
101 Books is an AI-driven publishing company co-founded by author Aarav Joshi. By leveraging advanced AI technology, we keep our publishing costs incredibly low—some books are priced as low as $4—making quality knowledge accessible to everyone.
Check out our book Golang Clean Code available on Amazon.
Stay tuned for updates and exciting news. When shopping for books, search for Aarav Joshi to find more of our titles. Use the provided link to enjoy special discounts!
📘 Checkout my latest ebook for free on my channel!
Be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe to the channel!
Our Creations
Be sure to check out our creations:
Investor Central | Investor Central Spanish | Investor Central German | Smart Living | Epochs & Echoes | Puzzling Mysteries | Hindutva | Elite Dev | JS Schools
We are on Medium
Tech Koala Insights | Epochs & Echoes World | Investor Central Medium | Puzzling Mysteries Medium | Science & Epochs Medium | Modern Hindutva
