Page 5 of 8~96 min topic

Evals and benchmarks

Anticipate failure modes

Name failures by their mechanism in evals and benchmarks on the coding copilot, not with a generic hallucination label.

~12 min this pageFailure modes

1Learn the idea

Read

Response design

For each severe evals and benchmarks failure on the coding copilot, define stop condition, safe state, owner, and lasting prevention. Rollback only works if prior prompts, indexes, and models remain available. “Send to a human” needs queue capacity and context—not just a button name.

Run one tabletop on the coding copilot for evals and benchmarks: inject a defect, verify detection, contain, recover, and keep the blameless trace.

Read

Make it operational

After the tabletop, store the injected evals and benchmarks defect for the coding copilot as a regression fixture. If the same failure later reaches users silently, your detection story was aspirational. Detection without a fixture tends to rot for evals and benchmarks.

Also pin one numeric memory from this evals and benchmarks chapter: 80/100 pass on unit-test tasks with 95% CI roughly ±4 pts—do not call a +2 pt vendor demo a revolution. That number is not decoration; it is a template for how claims about evals and benchmarks on the coding copilot should look in design docs. Scoped specifically to evals and benchmarks / coding copilot / failure-modes.

Read

Common mix-ups

People confuse evals and benchmarks with neighboring buzzwords when debugging the coding copilot. Before changing prompts, ask whether the broken stage was evidence gathering, the evals and benchmarks judgment itself, validation, or the product action. Fixing the wrong stage creates folklore (“we tried evals and benchmarks and it failed”) that blocks the next team on the coding copilot. Scoped specifically to evals and benchmarks / coding copilot / failure-modes.

Read

Rehearsal (eval-and-benchmarks/failure-modes)

Write a five-line artifact for this page: goal, inputs, check, owner, stop rule. Invent one fluent failure that the check would catch. Keep details specific to eval and benchmarks rather than generic AI advice.

Read

Rehearsal (eval-and-benchmarks/failure-modes)

Write a five-line artifact for this page: goal, inputs, check, owner, stop rule. Invent one fluent failure that the check would catch. Keep details specific to eval and benchmarks rather than generic AI advice.

Read

Rehearsal (eval-and-benchmarks/failure-modes)

Write a five-line artifact for this page: goal, inputs, check, owner, stop rule. Invent one fluent failure that the check would catch. Keep details specific to eval and benchmarks rather than generic AI advice.

Go deeper

Before you start

Why this matters

Invent an incident for the coding copilot involving evals and benchmarks. What earliest signal should fire before users complain?

Contamination

Detect with benchmark items in training. Respond by use private holdouts; rotate.

Metric myopia

Detect with pass@1 up while review time explodes. Respond by track human cost metrics.

Unrepresentative suites

Detect with only toy functions. Respond by add internal repo tasks.

Flaky scorers

Detect with non-deterministic checks. Respond by pin seeds; isolate network.

Check your understanding

Page assessment

Answer from memory. Completion is saved from this evidence, not from opening the next page.

1. What is one idea from this page you would apply, and what evidence would you check?

All responses are required.