Skip to content

RAG evaluation that tells you what to fix*

Get direct, actionable insight into your RAG pipeline's weaknesses before your customers find them.

Special offer
$199/mo $20 first week

then $199/mo

Cancel anytime.

Your week: full Pro+ access

  • Full Pro+, no limits, for the week
  • Score any model's answers against your knowledge base, graded on your gold standard
  • Pipeline diagnostics that name the layer behind a low score, from context to model
  • MCP and API: evaluate your RAG stack from wherever you work
Agent
> ask the knowledge base: what is the Pro plan's daily comparison limit, and what benchmark schedule does it get? grade each model against the correct answer
> run_evaluation (store attached, gold-standard grading, 3 models)
correct answer: 100 comparisons/day, daily benchmark schedule
model quality answer given
GPT-4o Mini (42.6/100) 40 comparisons/day
DeepSeek V4 Flash (32.5/100) 40 comparisons/day
GPT-4.1 Mini (25.8/100) 40 comparisons/day
diagnostic source: context impact: high
evidence: store row reads '... | 40 | 25 | 8 | ...'
fix: update the store, 40 -> 100, to match the reference
verdict: 3/3 models below bar | fault source: context (not model) | fix: update store 40 -> 100*

Know whether to fix your RAG context or your model

Evaluate your RAG pipeline against a rubric or gold standard answer. Score the responses from the AI models and get actionable diagnostic findings that identify the source of any errors, ambiguity, or contradictions. In the run above, all three models scored below 50 out of 100. The diagnostic attributed every one to the context layer rather than the model, because each answered faithfully from a knowledge base that was out of date.

Quality score by model (answer drawn from the knowledge base)

See exactly what to change

The diagnostic does not stop at a number. For the low-scoring run above, here is the finding it returned, verbatim. It names the layer at fault, quotes the exact line responsible, and states the change to make.

Agent
diagnostic finding (GPT-4o Mini)
source: context
impact: high
observation: response matches the source material exactly, but the source contradicts the reference answer on the comparisons limit
evidence: | Pro | $129/mo | 40 | 25 | 8 | ... |
suggestion: update the store: change Pro daily comparisons from 40 to 100 to match the reference

Spend your effort where it has the biggest impact

When the weakness is your content, tuning the model is wasted time. Fix the thing that was flagged, run the same evaluation again, and quality recovers. The same three models rose from below 50 to above 90 once the knowledge base matched the reference. Turn guesswork into targeted improvements that have measurable impact.

Quality score before and after the fix

Catch RAG drift before your customers do

A RAG pipeline does not stay fixed. Documents change, retrieval shifts, and the model behind it gets quietly updated. Run the same evaluation on a schedule and quality becomes a line you watch, with an alert the moment a run drops below your bar. Ongoing monitoring that catches drift and regressions while they are still small.

RAG quality over time, scheduled runs (illustrative)

More in Pro+

  • Score answers against a gold standard or a rubric, graded by an LLM judge
  • Pipeline diagnostics that name the layer behind a low score, from context to model
  • RAG context stores you attach to any evaluation, comparison, or benchmark
  • Compliance scoring: score outputs against your regulations clause by clause
  • Schedule the evaluation and get alerts when a score moves

Get powerful, fast

  • Onboarding takes minutes
  • Add MCP to your agent (chat, IDE, console)
  • Copy and paste prebaked recipes for powerful agentic flows and loops
  • Model your RAG pipeline as a preset and reuse it anywhere
  • Use diagnostic findings to fix the layer that moved the score
  • Schedule an evaluation and receive alerts when things change

$199/mo $20 for your first week

Then $199/mo. Cancel anytime.

*The results shown above are real. LLM Prover scored three models on one knowledge-base question, graded against a supplied correct answer, on 2026-10-18. The knowledge base used was a deliberately out-of-date store, to show how the diagnostic attributes a low score to the context layer. Your own knowledge base and questions will score differently. The quality-over-time chart is illustrative of scheduled monitoring.