CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tessl-labs/eval-improve

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

92

1.18x
Quality

89%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

94%

1.18x

Average score across 7 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

80%

40%

Scenario 1

Criteria
Without context
With context

reads_tile_files_before_fixing

0%

100%

proposes_before_applying

100%

100%

targeted_fix_not_rewrite

0%

100%

commits_before_rerun

66%

66%

workspace_in_eval_run

0%

0%

83%

83%

Scenario 2

Criteria
Without context
With context

runs_eval_view

0%

100%

runs_eval_compare_with_workspace

0%

50%

classifies_into_four_buckets

0%

75%

prioritizes_bucket_d

0%

100%

asks_before_fixing

0%

100%

100%

Data Pipeline Tile: Consistency Audit

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%

85%

-11%

Payments Tile Eval Analysis

Criteria
Without context
With context

Bucket A: idempotency key

100%

100%

Bucket B: webhook signature

100%

87%

Bucket C: HTTP status codes

100%

100%

Bucket B: currency precision

100%

87%

Bucket D: API version pinning

100%

100%

Bucket D highest priority

100%

100%

Bucket B diagnosis present

100%

46%

Bucket C action suggested

70%

60%

Bucket A no-action

100%

100%

80% threshold applied

90%

90%

100%

20%

API Integration Tile: Eval Rubric Review

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

0%

100%

80% threshold applied

100%

100%

Non-redundant scores unchanged

100%

100%

Below-threshold excluded

100%

100%

Removal option named explicitly

100%

100%

100%

Code Review Tile: Regression Investigation

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%

89%

-1%

Webhook Processor Tile: Retry Reliability Fix

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%

28%

Retry section only changed

100%

50%

Concise addition

0%

100%

Max retry count preserved

100%

100%

Fast acknowledgement preserved

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude
Model
Claude Haiku 4.5

Table of Contents