Author search-engine relevance regression tests for Elasticsearch, OpenSearch, and Apache Solr. Core workflow on the Elasticsearch Ranking Evaluation API (`POST {index}/_rank_eval`) - judgment lists (query + expected docs at ranks), per-query metrics (Precision@K, Recall@K, MRR, DCG, ERR), reproducible test corpora; pair with Quepid + Splainer for interactive judgment authoring. Per-engine references cover the OpenSearch delta (Search Relevance Workbench, neural query DSL, hybrid BM25 + neural pipelines, ES-to-OS migration parity) and the Apache Solr delta (no _rank_eval: debugQuery score explain, LTR feature/model store REST, eDisMax qf/pf/mm tuning, external nDCG harness). Use before changing analyzers, synonyms, boosts, or query templates on an Elasticsearch, OpenSearch, or Solr index that serves user-facing search, so the NDCG / MRR baseline is captured first.
71
89%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API, the _rank_eval endpoint
"evaluates search result quality across typical queries using
relevance metrics."
This skill is the single home for term-based engine relevance testing.
The core _rank_eval workflow below is authored against Elasticsearch;
the per-engine deltas live in references:
| Engine | Where | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| Elasticsearch | this SKILL.md | Built-in _rank_eval; the canonical workflow |
| OpenSearch | references/opensearch.md | _rank_eval-compatible fork; Search Relevance Workbench, neural query DSL, hybrid BM25 + neural pipelines, ES-to-OS migration parity |
| Apache Solr | references/solr.md | No _rank_eval; debugQuery explain, LTR feature/model store REST, eDisMax tuning, external nDCG harness |
A judgment is (query, doc_id, rating). Ratings: 0 = irrelevant,
1 = somewhat, 2 = relevant, 3 = highly relevant (4-point scale).
Build judgments via:
| Source | Method |
|---|---|
| Query logs + click data | Click model (clicked = ≥1, multi-click = ≥2) |
| Quepid (open source) | Interactive UI for judges to rate per-query results |
| Splainer | Diagnose why a doc ranked where it did |
| Domain SMEs | High-stakes queries; manual rating |
Judgment list format (CSV is common):
query,doc_id,rating
"running shoes",sku-1234,3
"running shoes",sku-5678,2
"running shoes",sku-9999,0
"red dress",sku-2222,3Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API:
| Metric | When to use |
|---|---|
| Precision@K | flat top-K accuracy; no graded weighting |
| Recall@K | completeness of the relevant set within top K |
| MRR | one good answer suffices (navigational, Q&A) |
| DCG / NDCG | graded relevance, rank-discounted; default for graded judgments |
| ERR | user-stops-at-first-relevant; rank-decay sensitive |
For e-commerce with graded judgments → NDCG@10 + MRR. For Q&A → MRR
Per the Elasticsearch Rank Eval API:
POST products/_rank_eval
{
"requests": [
{
"id": "running_shoes_query",
"request": {
"query": { "match": { "name": "running shoes" } }
},
"ratings": [
{ "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-1234", "rating": 3 },
{ "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-5678", "rating": 2 },
{ "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-9999", "rating": 0 }
]
},
{
"id": "red_dress_query",
"request": { "query": { "match": { "name": "red dress" } } },
"ratings": [
{ "_index": "products", "_id": "sku-2222", "rating": 3 }
]
}
],
"metric": {
"dcg": { "k": 10, "normalize": true }
}
}Response shape:
{
"metric_score": 0.84,
"details": {
"running_shoes_query": { "metric_score": 0.91, "unrated_docs": [...] },
"red_dress_query": { "metric_score": 0.77, "unrated_docs": [...] }
}
}import requests, csv
def load_judgments(path):
by_query = {}
with open(path) as f:
for row in csv.DictReader(f):
by_query.setdefault(row["query"], []).append({
"_index": "products",
"_id": row["doc_id"],
"rating": int(row["rating"]),
})
return by_query
def test_search_relevance_baseline():
judgments = load_judgments("tests/judgments.csv")
requests_payload = [
{
"id": q.replace(" ", "_"),
"request": { "query": { "match": { "name": q } } },
"ratings": ratings,
}
for q, ratings in judgments.items()
]
body = {
"requests": requests_payload,
"metric": { "dcg": { "k": 10, "normalize": true } },
}
r = requests.post("http://localhost:9200/products/_rank_eval", json=body)
result = r.json()
# Baseline NDCG must not regress vs known-good
assert result["metric_score"] >= 0.80, f"NDCG@10 regressed: {result['metric_score']}"Aggregate metric only catches large shifts. Track per-query:
def test_no_query_drops_more_than_10_percent():
current = run_rank_eval()
baseline = json.loads(Path("tests/baseline.json").read_text())
for query_id, baseline_score in baseline["details"].items():
current_score = current["details"][query_id]["metric_score"]
delta = current_score - baseline_score["metric_score"]
assert delta >= -0.10, \
f"Query {query_id} dropped {delta:.2f} (was {baseline_score['metric_score']:.2f}, now {current_score:.2f})"Binary-metric relevant_rating_threshold config, snapshotting a
reproducible test corpus for CI, and Quepid + Splainer judgment
authoring live in
references/rank-eval-guide.md.
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Use binary judgments only | Loses graded info; NDCG degrades to Precision | 4-point scale (Step 1) |
| Rebuild judgments per test run | Bias from current ranking | Pinned judgment list (Step 1) |
| Track only aggregate NDCG | Hides per-query regressions | Per-query tracking (Step 5) |
| Test against changing index | Baselines move under your feet | Snapshot corpus (advanced guide) |
| 100% click-derived judgments | Click bias to top results, position bias | Mix click + SME judgments |
vector-search-recall-tests -
vector search analogue