EvalGlass

Use case · RAG evaluation

Is your RAG pipeline actually grounded?

RAG evaluation in EvalGlass is not a packaged benchmark — it is project-specific checks you and your coding agent author from your own data: retrieval faithfulness, answer quality, and the trace evidence behind each answer, run locally and returned as a bounded scorecard.

Evaluate my RAG answers for faithfulness and grounding against my examples.

What it checks

Retrieval faithfulness · answer quality vs. your validated reference data · context grounding · trace evidence per answer. These are checks shaped around your product's behavior — not a generic leaderboard or a magic quality number.

What it will not claim

A green result means the checks you approved passed on the examples you supplied — never that your RAG system is correct or complete. Judge-assisted faithfulness metrics produce evidence, not authority: they cannot gate until you calibrate them against your own labels. A run stays informational until you promote a gate on a threshold you approve. No false green →

Ask your coding agent.

Evaluate my agentic app using EvalGlass.

In the docs

Traces →
bring exported trace evidence
Metrics →
author faithfulness checks
Judge metrics →
LLM-as-judge, calibrated
Claim boundary →
what a score means