Watch the idea
The concept
Case
Question + allowed sources
Score
Groundedness, not style
Gate
Invented citation is caught
A demo that works once is not a paper
Before you brag on GitHub, write cases: question, allowed sources, what good looks like, and when the system must refuse. Score groundedness, not vibe. That is how serious groups ship language features.
What belongs in a tiny eval set
Easy wins, hard retrieval, empty retrieval (must refuse), and a trap where a fluent lie looks legal. Twenty honest cases beat two hundred random chats you never scored.
Measure, then claim
Your README should say: on this set, unsupported answers dropped from X to Y. That sentence is hireable. 'It uses LangChain' is not. Evals turn a studio project into proof.
Worked example
The invented Act
The assistant cites 'Campus AI Act 2019' which does not exist. Style is perfect. Groundedness is zero. A gate that scores citations against the corpus fails it. A demo that only checks tone ships the lie.
Picture to keep
Cases → scores → fix
- 1Easy, hard, refuse
- 2Score the truth
- 3Fix, don't hide
