gepa-optimize-anything

name

gepa-optimize-anything

description

Automatically improve any text artifact that can be scored — prompts, programs/code, configs, specs, regex/SQL/schemas, agent scaffolds, or encoded search solutions — with optimize_anything, an LLM-driven optimization API: a search backend repeatedly proposes better versions from execution feedback and an evaluator you provide assigns the score (an objective metric or an LLM-as-judge for subjective tasks). optimize_anything is one interface across several optimizer backends — GEPA (reflective evolutionary search, the default), AutoResearch, MetaHarness — plus a best-of-N baseline: write the evaluator once and switch backend with a single argument. Use whenever a task needs auto-optimizing, tuning, or searching over text with any quality signal (accuracy, pass rate, latency, cost, judge rating); when building an evaluator + proposer loop; when running GEPA; or when comparing optimizers. The candidate can be any string an evaluator can grade, scored on one problem or generalized across many.

optimize_anything

Naming, precisely. optimize_anything is the tool: a general API for optimizing text artifacts. GEPA is one specific optimizer behind it — reflective evolutionary search, the default backend (engine="gepa") — and, for legacy reasons, also the name of the Python package that ships all of this. In this skill, "the gepa backend" always means the optimizer; statements about "the optimizer" or "the backend" apply to whichever engine you chose.

optimize_anything does black-box optimization: you provide (1) a seed artifact, (2) an evaluator that scores any artifact and returns feedback, and (3) a backend, which repeatedly proposes improved artifacts and scores them through your evaluator. "Black-box" refers to the evaluator, not the artifact: the backend never sees how the score is computed — no gradients, no metric internals — only the scalar score and the feedback text you emit. The candidate itself is visible: the proposer reads and rewrites it, applying the LLM's understanding of your artifact. The framework just imposes no structure on it — any string an evaluator can score works. The leverage is in your score and your feedback.

You write the task and evaluator once, then choose the search algorithm with one engine argument — and the same code runs under any of them:

• gepa — the GEPA optimizer: reflective evolutionary search, in-process (an LLM reflects on feedback and mutates candidates; keeps a Pareto frontier). The default; strongest when feedback is rich.
• autoresearch — an agentic optimizer: one Claude Code subprocess iterates like a researcher in a work dir, scoring candidates through an HTTP eval server.
• meta_harness — an agentic proposer (Claude subprocess) that reads the frontier/history each iteration and writes new candidates for the engine to benchmark.

(There is also a best_of_n engine — sample N independent candidates, keep the best. It is deliberately naive: use it as a baseline to compare an optimizer against, not as the optimizer.)

This makes it easy to start with one backend and benchmark others on the identical task/evaluator. There are also composition/pipeline helpers that combine backends over the same task: optimize_sequential (a pipeline — each stage's best seeds the next), optimize_parallel, optimize_best_of, optimize_vote (re-score each branch's best for a fair pick), and an adaptive scheduler that rotates backends on score plateaus — see references/api.md.

What can be a candidate

A candidate is any string your evaluator can score. "Text in → a number out (higher is better), plus optional feedback" is the entire contract, which covers a wide range of artifacts:

• prompts — system/user prompts, instruction templates, rubrics, few-shot exemplars
• programs / code — functions, whole files, CUDA kernels, scored by compiling + running + benchmarking
• configs / specs / schemas / regex / SQL — any text whose effect you can measure
• agent scaffolds — tool instructions, planner/critic prompts, orchestration text
• pure search artifacts — a mathematical construction, a packing layout, a plan, encoded as text

The score can be an objective metric (accuracy, pass rate, runtime, cost) or an LLM-as-judge rating for subjective tasks (writing quality, helpfulness, style). At this API the candidate is a single string (seed_candidate: str | None; None = seedless — the engine bootstraps from objective/background). Multi-component dict candidates exist only in the lower-level gepa.gepa_launcher.optimize_anything API, not here.

Three optimization modes (choose by how you pass data)

The mode is determined by whether you provide dataset and valset:

1. Single-task (dataset=None, valset=None) — solve one hard problem; the candidate is the solution; the evaluator is called with no example. E.g. one CUDA kernel, a circle-packing layout.
2. Multi-task (dataset=<list>, valset=None) — solve a batch of related problems with one shared candidate, transferring insight across them; evaluator called per example. E.g. a single prompt that works across many tasks.
3. Generalization (dataset=<list>, valset=<list>) — build a candidate that transfers to unseen problems; optimize on dataset, select on valset. E.g. a prompt tuned to generalize. Note: GEPA is the algorithm designed around this mode, and valset-based held-out selection is currently implemented only by the gepa backend — the other backends fold valset into the training pool (they can still generalize; there's just no separate selection split).

test_set is separate from the modes and reporting-only: the seed and the final candidate are scored on it after optimization for an unbiased number — it never enters the search, selection, or budget (for the agentic backends it is sealed at the eval server's HTTP layer, so the agent cannot even see it). See references/api.md for details and when to use each mode.

Install

pip install "gepa[full]"   # [full] pulls cloudpickle — needed to pickle closure evaluators for
                           # parallel workers / opt-in evaluation caching; plain `pip install gepa`
                           # can fail there when your evaluator closes over data.
# Proposer LLM: the gepa backend's reflection LM defaults to "openai/gpt-5.1" (a LiteLLM id) — set
# that provider's key (OPENAI_API_KEY), or pass your own id (e.g. "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6" with
# ANTHROPIC_API_KEY, or a Bedrock ARN with AWS creds). You can also pass any callable implementing
# GEPA's LM protocol — a self-hosted / custom inference engine — instead of a model-id string.
# Agentic backends (autoresearch, meta_harness) additionally need the `claude` CLI on PATH (plus
# `jq` for the generated eval.sh):
npm install -g @anthropic-ai/claude-code   # or: curl -fsSL https://claude.ai/install.sh | bash
#   ...then run `claude` once to authenticate.
# On Linux they also need bubblewrap: the default sandbox=True jails the claude subprocess with
# bwrap (`sudo apt install bubblewrap` / `sudo dnf install bubblewrap`) and the run aborts at
# launch if it's missing. sandbox=False opts out — the agent then runs unsandboxed (loud warning).

Mental model (4 pieces)

1. Candidate — the text you optimize (a str). The seed is the start; None = seedless.
2. evaluate(candidate, example) -> (score, info) — score is a float (higher is better); info is a free-form dict of feedback the backend's proposer reads to make better candidates (the gepa backend's reflection LM, or the agentic backends' agent; the best_of_n baseline ignores feedback). When evals batch better than they stream (e.g. a provider batch API), pass batch_evaluator= instead — all pending (candidate, example) pairs in one call; see references/api.md.
3. Engine (backend) — "gepa" (default), "autoresearch", "meta_harness", the "best_of_n" baseline, or a constructed Engine instance.
4. Budget — max_evals (server-side eval-call cap, default 100) and/or max_token_cost (USD cap on the backend's own proposer-LLM spend). Setting both to None makes the run unbounded (only a warning). Size max_evals for many proposal rounds, not one (see below) — this is the most common way agents misuse this API.

Sizing the valset and the budget (read this — the #1 mistake)

max_evals is the main control over how long the optimizer runs. Leave it at the default (100) with a large valset, or set it too low, and the run stops after a single proposal, then reports a "best candidate" that looks fine but is barely optimized.

• valset — on the gepa backend the best candidate is selected by its scores on the valset, so make it a representative subset of your data. There is no fixed size: pick what represents the task (a handful for small/expensive tasks, more when data is cheap and plentiful — anywhere from a few to hundreds). Bigger valset = less noisy selection but more eval calls per candidate.
• budget — every proposed candidate is scored on the whole selection set, so size max_evals off that set, not off a single proposal. Which set that is depends on the mode:

  generalization (dataset + valset):  max_evals ≳ 15–20 × len(valset)    # scored & selected on valset
  multi-task     (dataset only):      max_evals ≳ 15–20 × len(dataset)   # scored & selected on dataset
  single-task    (no dataset/valset): max_evals ≳ 15–20                  # 1 eval per candidate, so this
                                                                         #   IS the number of proposals
  

  The constant is the same everywhere — let the backend propose AND evaluate ~15–20 candidates (more if you can afford it). Anything much less and the run tries only a couple of candidates — i.e. it's barely optimizing. (This arithmetic is exact for the gepa backend — and the best_of_n baseline — which score every candidate on the full selection set; the agentic backends decide themselves how to spend eval calls, so treat it as a floor.)

After the run, check how many proposals actually happened (on the gepa backend, result.candidates is the full pool; with engine.write_agent_state=True the run_dir/iterations/ tree shows each one). If it stopped after one proposal, the budget was too low — raise it and rerun.

Give every run a real stop condition

max_evals bounds eval calls, but add explicit stops so runs end at the right moment:

• stop_at_score — set it whenever your metric has a known ceiling (e.g. 1.0 for a pass rate / accuracy). The backend stops the moment a candidate reaches it instead of burning the rest of the budget at the optimum.
• max_token_cost — a hard USD cap on the backend's own proposer/agent LLM spend. Especially important for the agentic backends (autoresearch, meta_harness), whose Claude subprocesses spend tokens between eval calls.
• a wall-clock timeout on the process you launch (e.g. timeout 1200 python run.py) as a backstop.
• If you opt in to evaluation caching (engine_config={"engine": {"cache_evaluation": True}} on the gepa backend — it is off by default), be aware max_evals then counts only cache misses: a converged search can keep proposing cache-hitting candidates without consuming eval budget, so stop_at_score/max_token_cost become mandatory, not optional. A distinct valset is cached separately from the trainset; valset=None still reuses minibatch rollouts.

Minimal working example

The example optimizes a system prompt for concreteness, but the shape is identical for any candidate — swap SEED for a code file / config / etc. and have evaluate compile/run/measure it.

from gepa.optimize_anything import optimize_anything, OptimizeAnythingConfig

SEED = "You are an expert. Solve the task. Output only the final answer."

def evaluate(candidate: str, example) -> tuple[float, dict]:
    output = run_my_model(system_prompt=candidate, user_prompt=example["prompt"])  # your call
    score = grade(output, example)                                                 # float, higher=better
    return score, {                       # everything here is shown to the proposer LLM
        "score": score,
        "output": output,
        "error": example.get("error"),    # concrete, actionable feedback drives good proposals
    }

result = optimize_anything(
    seed_candidate=SEED,
    evaluator=evaluate,
    dataset=trainset,            # optimize on these (multi-task/generalization mode)
    valset=valset,               # select the best candidate on these (generalization mode)
    test_set=testset,            # OPTIONAL, reporting-only: seed + final candidate scored here at the end
    objective="Produce a prompt that maximizes task accuracy.",
    background="Domain rules, constraints, output format the model must follow.",
    config=OptimizeAnythingConfig(
        engine="gepa",               # swap to "autoresearch" / "meta_harness" — same code
                                     #   ("best_of_n" runs the same way, as a comparison baseline)
        name="my_run",
        max_evals=300,               # ≳ 15-20 × len(valset): enough for ~15-20 proposals (see above)
        stop_at_score=1.0,           # stop at the optimum (set when your metric has a known ceiling)
        max_concurrency=,
        run_dir=,       
        output_dir=, 
        engine_config={              
            : {          
                
                : ,
                : ,
            },
            : {: , : },  
        },
    ),
)
(result.best_candidate, result.best_score)

(, result.metadata.get(),
      , result.metadata.get())

Standard workflow

1. Pick the mode (single-task / multi-task / generalization) by which of dataset/valset you pass.
2. Define the score deliberately. The optimizer optimizes exactly what you measure — gate the score on what you actually care about (see references/gotchas.md, reward hacking).
3. Write a feedback-rich evaluate. The info dict is the proposer's signal — return errors, diffs, partial credit, not just a number (oa.log() and capture_stdio can route diagnostics in automatically). See references/writing_evaluators.md.
4. Pick a proposer LLM — a LiteLLM id (set the provider key) or a custom LM-protocol callable. Validate it with a 1-call test before a long run.
5. Set a budget (max_evals sized per above, and/or max_token_cost) plus stop_at_score when the metric has a ceiling.
6. Run python scripts/preflight.py to fail fast on missing creds / CLI before a long run.
7. Launch, watch the first 1-2 evals (the eval→model→score chain), then let it run.
8. Read result.best_candidate and run_dir/ (and result.metadata["test_score"] if you passed a test_set).

Critical gotchas (read before a real run)

These silently degrade results — skim before launching:

• Reward hacking. Every backend optimizes exactly what you score; a weak proxy gets gamed (e.g. a "correct"-only score → a do-nothing wrapper). Gate the score on the real goal. → references/gotchas.md.
• Selection bias. In generalization mode the best candidate is the max over many scored on valset — an optimistic estimate. Use enough valset examples (and N>1 for stochastic models), and report on a test_set for an unbiased number. → references/gotchas.md.
• Stochastic models default to N=1 per eval → noisy selection. Average N samples inside evaluate. → references/writing_evaluators.md.
• Saturated signal → the gepa backend returns the seed unchanged. If the seed already aces the training examples, every proposal looks "not better" and is rejected (many proposals, ~0 accepted). Reflection needs examples the seed gets wrong to learn from — ensure dataset has real failures. → references/gotchas.md.
• engine_config is validated strictly per backend — an unknown key (including a leftover key from a different backend after swapping engine=) raises TypeError at construction. Swapping engine= means swapping the engine_config block. → references/api.md.
• Agentic backends (autoresearch, meta_harness) shell out to the claude CLI and abort at launch with install instructions if it's missing — likewise for bwrap (bubblewrap) on Linux, which the default sandbox=True needs. sandbox=False runs the agent unconfined (loud warning). Run scripts/preflight.py first; details in references/api.md.

Reference files (load as needed)

• references/api.md — OptimizeAnythingConfig, the backends and their typed engine_config options, the three modes, the LM protocol, budget/cost semantics, GEPAResult shape, and the composition/pipeline helpers.
• references/writing_evaluators.md — the (score, info) contract, oa.log()/capture_stdio, LLM-as-judge scoring, multi-objective via info["scores"], N>1 averaging, feedback design.
• references/tracking.md — enabling wandb / mlflow experiment tracking and what gets logged.
• references/gotchas.md — reward hacking, selection bias, the three modes, backend prerequisites.
• scripts/preflight.py — validate creds / proposer LM / claude CLI before launching.