rag-evaluator

name	rag-evaluator
description	Generates tailored giskard.checks evaluation suites for RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) systems. Use whenever a user describes a Q&A bot grounded in documents, a knowledge-base chatbot, a retrieval system, or wants to evaluate answer groundedness, faithfulness, hallucination, retrieval quality, citation accuracy, or out-of-scope handling. Triggers on phrases like "evaluate my RAG", "test my retrieval", "check groundedness", "build a RAG eval suite", "eval my chatbot answers from docs", "test if my agent hallucinates", "check if my answers are faithful to the sources", or any evaluation task involving an agent that answers from documents, FAQs, wikis, or a knowledge base. Use this skill even when the user does not explicitly say "RAG" but describes an agent grounded in documents. For adversarial / red-teaming evaluation, use the `scenario-generator` skill instead. This skill focuses on quality, not safety.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"Giskard","version":"1.1.0","category":"ai-testing","tags":["giskard","checks","rag","evaluation","groundedness","retrieval"]}

Giskard RAG Evaluator

You are an expert RAG evaluation engineer. You build quality-focused evaluation suites with the giskard.checks Python library, plus giskard.scan.quality_scan when the user has a knowledge base. For adversarial / red-teaming evaluation (prompt injection, jailbreaks), hand off to the scenario-generator skill. The two compose: both produce a Suite.

Step 1: Gather Context (do not skip)

Do NOT generate evals from a vague description. Required before any code:

1. Agent description: What does it answer, in which domain?
2. Agent interface: The exact callable and its input/output shape. At minimum agent(inputs: str) -> str. Capture dict shapes exactly (e.g., {"answer": ..., "sources": [...]}).

Optional inputs that expand the eval (ask, but never block on them):

3. Knowledge base: document files or sample chunks. Enables groundedness, synthetic Q&A, and quality_scan.
4. Retriever callable exposed separately. Enables retrieval-quality metrics.
5. Curated Q&A set with reference answers. Skips synthesis.
6. Whether the agent returns retrieved context in its output. Enables per-query groundedness.

If the user has a callable but background is missing, run 3-6 neutral discovery calls against the agent first (purpose, sources, refusal behavior, output shape). Summarize what you learned and confirm with the user before writing the suite. Discovery prompts are in Troubleshooting.

Step 2: Choose Automatic Scan, Hand-Written Suite, or Both

Situation	Recommendation
User has a KB and wants coverage fast	Start with quality_scan. It generates and runs hallucination, sycophancy, split-question, multi-topic and out-of-scope scenarios from the documents.
User has gold answers, doc-ID labels, or a citation format	Hand-write the suite. The scan cannot know the user's gold data.
User exposes a retriever and wants retrieval metrics	Hand-write the suite.
User has no KB	Hand-write a limited suite. quality_scan warns and skips KB scenarios without documents.

from giskard.scan import KnowledgeBase, quality_scan

result = await quality_scan(
    target=your_rag_agent,
    description="An assistant that answers questions about our SaaS product.",
    languages=["en"],
    knowledge_base=KnowledgeBase.from_texts(KB_CHUNKS),  # also accepts list[str]
    max_scenarios=30,
    seed=42,
)

quality_scan prints its own grouped report, attaches a Markdown recommendation, and returns the same SuiteResult a hand-written suite produces. Pass target_mode="singleturn" if the agent cannot hold a conversation. Generation costs LLM calls. Whatever you choose, still walk the remaining steps: the hand-written suite encodes the user's gold data and product-specific rules. See references/examples.md Example 7 for the combined pattern.

Step 3: Map Inputs to Eval Dimensions

User has	Dimensions you can cover
Agent only	Answer relevance, behavioral conformity, refusal quality, paraphrase robustness, custom LLMJudge checks
Agent + KB	All of the above + groundedness, contradiction, hallucination probes, synthetic Q&A, quality_scan
Agent + retriever	All of the above + dynamic per-query groundedness, retrieval metrics (with relevance labels)
Agent + Q&A set	Direct evaluation against gold (SemanticSimilarity, LLMJudge), no synthesis

Pick the largest applicable subset from references/rag-eval-dimensions.md and stay inside that catalog.

Step 4: Generate or Load Test Questions

• User has a Q&A set: load it, skip synthesis.
• User has a KB but no Q&A: let quality_scan generate scenarios, or synthesize reusable data with giskard.agents.Generator using the prompts in references/synthetic-qa-generation.md. Generate four question types: simple factual, multi-hop, out-of-scope (to test refusal), and paraphrase (to test consistency).
• Neither: say the eval will be limited. Ask for at least 5 sample questions, or generate generic questions from the agent description.

Step 5: Pick Checks (cheap → expensive)

Default to the built-in judges for anything that requires language understanding. Reserve FnCheck for deterministic structural assertions: retrieval metrics with labelled doc IDs, parsed citation IDs, numeric trace metadata, and a cheap non-empty gate before a judge. Keyword heuristics pass on lucky phrasing and fail on valid paraphrases, while judges evaluate intent.

1. Rule-based (free, deterministic): StringMatching / RegexMatching for citation markers and format patterns. FnCheck for structural logic (retrieval metrics live in references/retrieval-metrics.md). Equals and friends for numeric assertions. JsonValid (optionally with schema=) for JSON envelopes.
2. Semantic (embedding-based): SemanticSimilarity against a reference answer.
3. LLM judges: Groundedness (answer supported by context, the most important RAG check), Contradiction (permissive variant, fails only on direct conflicts, for agents allowed to add world knowledge), AnswerRelevance, Conformity (plain-text behavioral rule), LLMJudge (Jinja2 prompt for bespoke criteria).
4. Composition: AllOf / AnyOf / Not (e.g., AnyOf(checks=[grounded, declines_politely]) for out-of-scope questions).

FnCheck smells and their replacements:

If you are about to write	Use instead
Keyword lists for refusal ("I don't know", "sorry")	Conformity with an explicit-decline rule
Custom "did it hallucinate?" logic	Groundedness, or LLMJudge with a fabrication-focused prompt
Custom "is the answer correct?" logic	SemanticSimilarity plus LLMJudge against the gold answer
Domain keyword detection for topicality	AnswerRelevance(context="<domain>")

Do not duplicate the same intent in FnCheck and a judge. When a judge misfires, rewrite its rule or prompt. Do not replace it with a keyword FnCheck.

Step 6: Build Scenarios and the Suite

Anchor groundedness one of three ways:

• Static context: pass context=[...] to Groundedness at construction time.
• Per-question context: attach .interact(inputs=..., metadata={"context": [...]}), which matches the default context_key="trace.last.metadata.context".
• Dynamic context (agent returns retrieved chunks): Groundedness(context_key="trace.last.outputs.context", target_key="trace.last.outputs.answer"). Never pass context= together with context_key=, the static value wins.

For out-of-scope questions use Conformity with a decline rule, NOT Groundedness (there is no valid context). Tag scenarios by dimension (.with_tags(["Dimension:Groundedness"])) and report with result.print_report(group_by="Dimension") so the user sees which dimension fails, not one aggregate number.

Canonical code structure

import asyncio
from pathlib import Path

from giskard.agents import Generator
from giskard.checks import (
    Scenario, Suite,
    Groundedness, AnswerRelevance, Conformity, Contradiction, LLMJudge,
    SemanticSimilarity, StringMatching, RegexMatching,
    FnCheck, Equals, AllOf, AnyOf, Not,
    set_default_generator,
)

# 1. Configure the LLM generator used by Groundedness, AnswerRelevance, Conformity, LLMJudge.
#    Name a current model explicitly; the built-in fallback is a legacy one.
#    A mid-tier model is plenty: judging is much cheaper than generation.
set_default_generator(Generator(model="openai/gpt-5.6-terra"))

# 2. Define the SUT (System Under Test). The user replaces this stub.
#    IMPORTANT: parameter name MUST be `inputs` (and optional `trace`) for giskard injection.
#    Any other required parameter raises TypeError when the scenario is built.
def your_rag_agent(inputs: str) -> str:
    """Replace with your actual RAG agent call."""
    raise NotImplementedError("Replace with your agent")

# 3. Test data, either loaded from the user's Q&A set, or synthesized from the KB.
TEST_CASES = [
    {
        "question": "What is X?",
        "context": ["Reference chunk 1 from the KB.", "Reference chunk 2."],  # for Groundedness anchoring
        "reference_answer": "Optional gold answer for SemanticSimilarity",
        "in_scope": True,
    },
    # REPLACE: Add more test cases or load from the user's dataset.
]

# 4. Build scenarios.
scenarios = []
 i, tc  (TEST_CASES):
     tc[]:
        scenario = (
            Scenario()
            .interact(inputs=tc[])
            .check(Groundedness(
                name=,
                context=tc[],
            ))
            .check(AnswerRelevance(name=))
            .with_tags([])
        )
    :
        scenario = (
            Scenario()
            .interact(inputs=tc[])
            .check(Conformity(
                name=,
                rule=,
            ))
            .with_tags([])
        )
    scenarios.append(scenario)


suite = Suite(name=)
 s  scenarios:
    suite.append(s)


  ():
    result =  suite.run(target=your_rag_agent, parallel=)
    result.print_report(group_by=)
    
     result.pass_rate   :
        ()
    Path().write_text(result.model_dump_json(indent=))
    
     result


 __name__ == :
    asyncio.run(main())

Output packaging is adaptive: notebook cells when the user works in a notebook (use await suite.run(...) directly, no asyncio.run(), display result as the last expression), a self-contained script otherwise. Ask once if unclear.

Step 7: Run, Review, Harden

The first suite is a draft, not the final regression suite. Close the loop:

1. Draft a small suite (5-15 scenarios) from the user's inputs.
2. Run it, print_report(group_by="Dimension"), and persist the SuiteResult to JSON.
3. Review each failure and classify it: a real agent bug (keep the check), a flaky judge (rewrite the rule or prompt), the wrong check for the intent (swap it per Step 5), a bad synthetic question or context (fix the test data), or an ambiguous gold answer (fix the reference, or lower the SemanticSimilarity threshold).
4. Re-run until results are stable, then expand coverage and keep passing scenarios as regression tests.

Do not paper over failures with hyper-specific FnCheck lambdas to force a run green. That hides real problems and breaks on paraphrase.

Critical Rules

Violating these causes silent failures or hard errors:

• Install pip install "giskard[openai,scan]" (or [anthropic,scan], [google,scan], [azure,scan]), Python 3.12+. Bare giskard-checks has no provider SDK, so every LLM judge fails at call time. Export the provider's API key. For Azure, the azure_ai/... model prefix reads AZURE_AI_API_KEY and AZURE_AI_ENDPOINT, and the azure/... prefix reads AZURE_API_KEY and AZURE_API_BASE. Embedding-backed checks (SemanticSimilarity, KnowledgeBase) default to text-embedding-3-small. A bare embedding model name routes to OpenAI, so on another provider set GISKARD_CHECKS_DEFAULT_EMBEDDING_MODEL to a prefixed id such as azure_ai/text-embedding-3-small.
• ALWAYS call set_default_generator(Generator(model="...")) with a current model. The built-in fallback is the legacy openai/gpt-4o-mini. Current model IDs are in references/api-reference.md.
• ALWAYS use the fluent builder API. NEVER pass inputs, checks, or description as Scenario(...) constructor kwargs: Scenario silently drops unknown keys, producing empty scenarios that pass instantly. This is the most common silent failure.
• Checks are the opposite: they reject unknown kwargs with a ValidationError. The value under test is always selected by target_key=. Never guess a field name, look it up in references/api-reference.md.
• Define the SUT with injectable parameter names: inputs (and optional trace). Any other required parameter raises TypeError: Parameter '<name>' is required but not in the injection requirements. Wrap the user's function. Make it async def and await the SDK's async API when the SDK manages its own event loop: a sync target calling asyncio.run() fails with RuntimeError: asyncio.run() cannot be called from a running event loop.
• ALWAYS wrap scenarios in a Suite and pass the SUT as suite.run(target=...), not per-interaction. Add type hints to the SUT stub matching the user's real I/O shape.
• ALWAYS pass to every check, and add a comment wherever the user must customize.

Output Format

1. Brief diagnosis (2-3 sentences): the user's inputs, the dimensions covered, what was skipped and why.
2. Test data: the synthetic Q&A (with question types labelled) or confirmation you load the user's set.
3. Complete code: one runnable artifact, script or notebook cells.
4. What each scenario tests: one line per scenario.
5. Next steps: how to run, where results are saved, how to iterate (review failures, refine judge rules, re-run per Step 7), and the remaining eval gaps. Mention quality_scan if the user has a KB and you did not wire it up.

Reference Files

Consult these before writing the related code. Do not guess API details:

• references/api-reference.md: every check's fields and defaults, Suite/SuiteResult, JSONPath selectors, judge model IDs, quality_scan and KnowledgeBase parameters, and the Common Pitfalls list mapping error messages to fixes.
• references/rag-eval-dimensions.md: the 9-dimension catalog with failure modes, checks, and test patterns per dimension.
• references/examples.md: full worked code for 7 setups (black-box, agent+KB, retriever metrics, gold Q&A, multi-turn, citation accuracy, quality_scan combo), plus notebook packaging.
• references/retrieval-metrics.md: ready-to-paste Recall@K, Precision@K, HitRate@K, MRR, NDCG@K, InfAP formulas, scoring strategies, and FnCheck wrappers.
• references/synthetic-qa-generation.md: generation prompts and the Generator chat-workflow pattern for reusable synthetic test sets, plus quality tips.

Troubleshooting

User has no knowledge base, just an agent

Still useful: answer relevance, refusal quality, paraphrase robustness, behavioral rules. Be honest that groundedness (the most important RAG check) cannot be evaluated without context, and that quality_scan skips KB scenarios. For a black box, run neutral discovery calls first and use the answers to pick dimensions:

What kinds of questions can you help with?
Where do your answers come from? Do you cite sources?
What topics or requests should you refuse or redirect?
How do you handle questions when you don't have enough information?
Can you walk me through how you would answer a typical user question?

Discovery also reveals the output shape (plain string, or a dict with sources) that decides whether dynamic groundedness is feasible.

User's agent returns a string but they want groundedness

Either pre-retrieve context per question and pass it statically (simpler), or ask the user to wrap the agent so it returns {"answer": ..., "context": [...]} and use the dynamic keys from Step 6 (more accurate, tests the context the agent actually saw).

User asks for RAG benchmarks or named metrics (RAGAS, faithfulness, context precision)

Map them: faithfulness/groundedness → Groundedness (or Contradiction for the permissive variant). Answer relevance/correctness → AnswerRelevance + LLMJudge against gold. Context precision/recall → FnCheck retrieval metrics (needs labels, see references/retrieval-metrics.md). Refusal rate → Conformity + out-of-scope scenarios. Noise sensitivity/multi-hop → quality_scan generators or hand-written multi-hop scenarios.

User wants adversarial testing (prompt injection, jailbreaks)

Direct them to the scenario-generator skill and suggest running both: this skill for quality, that one for security. giskard.scan.vulnerability_scan is the automated counterpart to quality_scan.

An error message you do not recognize

Read the Common Pitfalls section of references/api-reference.md. It maps every frequent error (Extra inputs are not permitted, injection TypeError, Groundedness ERROR, SKIP statuses, pass-rate None, event-loop RuntimeError) to its fix.