Eval gates in code
Measure whether the CI eval release gate works
Page 4 turns “it ran” into executable checks for the release eval gate in CI.
1Learn the idea
Read
Make the metric executable
Translate the claim into assertions or a tiny eval harness. The metric to protect is: pass/fail exit code; metric deltas vs baseline; seed recorded. Always record the denominator (how many cases) beside any rate. A percentage without a denominator is marketing, not measurement.
Read
Run the checks
baseline=0.92; candidate=0.81; threshold=0.9
assert candidate < threshold
print({'exit_code':1,'delta':round(candidate-baseline,2)})
Expected evidence: gate fails candidate. A passing assertion proves only the behavior it names; broader usefulness still needs the chapter’s full limits.
Read
Say what the metric does not prove
Be explicit: beating the baseline (last known good release metrics) on this fixture does not prove behavior under flaky eval that flips without seed control, or soft-fail that never blocks merge. Label observations separately from conclusions so the next page inherits honest evidence about the CI eval release gate.
Read
Lab notebook: denominator discipline
Compute pass/fail exit code; metric deltas vs baseline; seed recorded with the denominator written beside the rate every time. For this chapter, the evaluation set is intentionally tiny; that is allowed only if you say so in the evidence. Compare against last known good release metrics before celebrating.
Add one negative case aimed at flaky eval that flips without seed control, or soft-fail that never blocks merge. A suite with only happy cases cannot protect the CI eval release gate when the characteristic failure appears in review.
Read
Worked judgment
If a check is expensive or flaky, shrink it until it is deterministic on golden JSONL + threshold.yaml. Flaky green builds teach the team to ignore gates. Record what this page does not prove so security-ops and mastery-ship inherit honest limits.
Read
Why this stage matters for the CI eval release gate
At the evaluation stage for eval-in-code, the job is narrower than finishing a product demo. You are creating one progressive evidence piece about golden JSONL + threshold.yaml that later pages inherit without redefining success. Keep that fixture small enough to inspect by hand, keep outputs copy-pasteable as text, and refuse to narrate this baseline as if it were a production SLA: last known good release metrics.
For this page specifically, success looks like metrics with explicit denominators and a negative case while still centering the user decision to fail a candidate release when golden-task metrics regress past a pinned threshold. If you cannot point to a file, command, or assertion that proves that for the CI eval release gate, stay on this page instead of advancing.
Go deeper
Before you start
Why this matters
Write one independent check that would catch a fake pass for this lab. Prefer a check tied to pass/fail exit code; metric deltas vs baseline; seed recorded over a check that only asserts “no exception.”
In the wild
See how this idea shows up as a product and a company — then come back to the lesson. Skills transfer across vendors.
Related lessons
Check your understanding
Page assessment
Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.
All responses are required.