Use case · Stakeholder scorecards
Show a stakeholder what actually changed.
A product lead does not want a raw JSON dump — they want an honest summary. Ask your coding agent to turn the run into a readable scorecard of what was reviewed, what improved, what regressed, and what still needs review, with the evidence anyone can audit.
Create a scorecard summary I can share with the product lead.
What it checks
a readable summary of what was reviewed, improved, regressed, and still needs review — each line backed by auditable evidence. You can audit the evidence; the summary never claims your AI is “safe” or “certified,” and stays informational unless a specific gate was approved.
The scorecard
Verdict informational — a shared summary, not an approval. Illustrative example, not a measured result.
Share the HTML report next
The same summary renders as a shareable report.html — a verdict hero, KPI
tiles, per-metric interval bands, and a “what this run does not claim”
panel — one file a product lead can open, with the honesty built in. It is a rendering of the record,
never a second verdict.
report.html · stakeholder summary · this release
Shared — not an approval.
What this run does not claim
Not that the release is “safe,” “certified,” or approved. No gate is approved, so the summary is informational. One policy check regressed and one metric still needs review — shared honestly, not smoothed over.
The same “what this run does not claim” honesty a stakeholder needs — in one shareable file. This is an illustrative example, not a measured result.
What it will not claim
You audit the evidence; EvalGlass does not “audit your AI.” A shared scorecard is informational unless a real gate was approved, and “clearer confidence” is never “safe,” “certified,” or “approved.” No false green →
Ask your coding agent.
Evaluate my agentic app using EvalGlass.
Related