← Field Notes

Field note · Evaluation · January 2026

Evaluate agent behaviour, not just the final answer

An agent can produce an acceptable answer through an unsafe path, or fail a brittle benchmark while finding a better solution. Evaluation must cover the trajectory, environment and business outcome.

AudienceCTOs · founders · engineering leaders
PerspectiveProduction architecture and delivery
FormatOriginal analysis grounded in primary sources

Move beyond text grading

Agent evaluations should inspect tool choice, argument correctness, sequencing, policy compliance, state changes and recovery. Deterministic environment checks should grade what actually changed.

Use a portfolio of evaluators

Combine unit tests, rule-based assertions, trace analysis, model graders and human review. No single evaluator is reliable enough for every dimension, especially where quality is subjective or the agent can find unexpected valid solutions.

Test failure behaviour

Include tool timeouts, partial data, stale context, permission denial, duplicate events, adversarial instructions and model fallback. Measure whether the agent contains damage and escalates appropriately.

Connect to operations

Track task success, false action rate, human override, latency, token and tool cost, retries and post-deployment regressions. Re-run representative traces whenever models, prompts, tools or policies change.

Executive takeaway

Evals are not a launch checklist. They are the control system that lets an organisation improve agent capability without losing trust as the surrounding system evolves.

Primary reading

  1. Anthropic : Demystifying evals for AI agents
  2. Anthropic : Building effective agents