- 01A test environment and written permission to test it
- 02The outcome the agent must achieve
- 03Relevant policies, required behaviours and known risks
- 04Access to traces, tool results or recordings needed for verification
Human evaluation for AI agents
Put expert human judgment where automated scores stop.
DIRECT ANSWER / HE / 01
Human evaluation for AI agents is a structured test in which calibrated people execute difficult tasks against an agent, verify what happened, and judge the parts of quality that objective checks cannot resolve.
STARTING ENGAGEMENTReadiness Audit
TEST COVERAGE1,000+ human-run scenarios
DELIVERY2–3 weeks
PROJECT PRICE₹4–6L per project
WHO THIS IS FOR / 01
The buyer and the decision.
For AI, product and engineering leaders who have automated evals but still cannot defend whether the agent is useful, safe and ready in real customer situations.
A pass rate can confirm that a tool returned a value. It cannot always tell you whether the agent understood an indirect request, recovered naturally from confusion, or gave a response a domain expert would trust. Unstructured feedback does not solve this: without calibration and agreement measurement, it is simply a collection of opinions.
THE WORK / 02
A clear handoff.
A complete test.
You bring the agent, its intended outcome and the evidence needed to verify it. RigorIndex designs and runs the evaluation independently.
- 01Translates the desired outcome into a scoring rubric
- 02Finds language and domain experts suited to the workflow
- 03Calibrates reviewers against the same examples and thresholds
- 04Designs and executes difficult scenarios, then packages reproducible evidence
TWO LAYERS OF EVIDENCE / 03
Facts first.
Judgment where it matters.
Objective checks determine what happened. Calibrated people judge the qualities a deterministic rule cannot settle. The report keeps those evidence types separate.
HUMANS EXECUTE + JUDGEH1 H2 H3
Intent under ambiguity
Whether the agent understands what a real person means when the request is indirect, incomplete or corrected.
Domain quality
Whether the answer is appropriate and useful according to people who understand the work, not only the wording.
Conversation behaviour
Whether recovery, clarification, tone and handoff behaviour remain effective under pressure.
OBJECTIVE CHECKS VERIFYO1 O2 O3
Task and tool outcome
Whether the required action completed and the expected system state actually changed.
Required events
Whether identity, disclosure, consent, escalation and other deterministic steps occurred.
Timing and trace evidence
Latency, tool errors, sequence of actions and the exact seed needed to reproduce a failure.
RELEVANT METRICS / 04
Measure the outcome the agent owns.
Task completion
Did the agent finish the customer’s job?
Intent accuracy
Did it act on what the person actually meant?
Reviewer agreement
Did calibrated experts apply the standard consistently?
Critical failure rate
How often did a release-blocking error occur?
Recovery success
Could the agent return to the task after confusion?
Reproducibility
Can engineering rerun and observe the finding?
The final score weights the metrics and severity thresholds agreed for the tested workflow. Every report also states evaluator agreement or evaluation accuracy.
FAILURE FILE / 05
Representative human-judgment failureILLUSTRATIVENOT A CLIENT RESULT
The answer is factually correct—and still unusable.
- SCENARIO
- A customer asks an indirect follow-up after the agent has completed a tool call. The final amount is correct, but the response does not make clear what changed or what the customer must do next.
- OBSERVED
- Objective checks pass the tool result and amount. Calibrated reviewers independently mark the response as unclear and action-blocking.
- WHY IT MATTERS
- A metric-only evaluation records success. The customer remains unable to complete the real-world outcome.
ENGAGEMENT / 06
Start with a bounded readiness audit.
Every first engagement starts with 1,000+ difficult human-run scenarios against an authorized test environment.
Readiness Audit₹4–6L per project
TYPICAL DELIVERY2–3 weeks
- Release-readiness score✓
- Reviewer-agreement result✓
- Severity-ranked failures✓
- Evidence and reproduction details✓
Project-priced. Final scope depends on workflows, languages, environments and evidence requirements. Minimum engagement value is ₹3L.
Discuss the test scopeMETHODOLOGY + RELATED READING / 07
Continue the evaluation.
READY WHEN YOU ARE / 08
See one failure before you commission the audit.
Send us one customer flow. We’ll return a free, confidential failure report showing how we would test it.