CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

experiments/eval-improve

Analyze eval results, diagnose low-scoring criteria, fix tile content, and re-run evals — the full improvement loop automated

94

1.02x
Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

100%

1.02x

Average score across 5 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

100%

8%

Payments Tile Eval Analysis

Eval Bucket Classification

Criteria
Without context
With context

Bucket A: idempotency key

100%

100%

Bucket B: webhook signature

100%

100%

Bucket C: HTTP status codes

100%

100%

Bucket B: currency precision

100%

100%

Bucket D: API version pinning

100%

100%

Bucket D highest priority

100%

100%

Bucket B diagnosis present

100%

100%

Bucket C action suggested

50%

100%

Bucket A no-action

87%

100%

80% threshold applied

80%

100%

100%

Webhook Processor Tile: Retry Reliability Fix

Targeted Tile Editing

Criteria
Without context
With context

Explicit retry intervals

100%

100%

Rubric language used

100%

100%

HMAC section unchanged

100%

100%

TLS section unchanged

100%

100%

Observability section unchanged

100%

100%

Processing section unchanged

100%

100%

Retry section only changed

100%

100%

Concise addition

100%

100%

Max retry count preserved

100%

100%

Fast acknowledgement preserved

100%

100%

100%

Data Pipeline Tile: Consistency Audit

Cross-file Contradiction Detection

Criteria
Without context
With context

Retry count contradiction found

100%

100%

Auth failure contradiction found

100%

100%

All three files referenced

100%

100%

File attribution per contradiction

100%

100%

Auth contradiction despite scope

100%

100%

Verbatim quotes included

100%

100%

100%

Code Review Tile: Regression Investigation

Regression Root Cause Analysis

Criteria
Without context
With context

Contradicting clause identified

100%

100%

Contradiction mechanism explained

100%

100%

Remove/clarify approach taken

100%

100%

Specific text targeted

100%

100%

No compensating additions

100%

100%

Other sections preserved

100%

100%

Pre-review list intact

100%

100%

100%

API Integration Tile: Eval Rubric Review

Redundant Criteria Management

Criteria
Without context
With context

All redundant criteria identified

100%

100%

Options presented per criterion

100%

100%

Useful criteria preserved

100%

100%

Weight redistribution correct

100%

100%

80% threshold applied

100%

100%

Non-redundant scores unchanged

100%

100%

Below-threshold excluded

100%

100%

Removal option named explicitly

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents