Good metrics are the foundation of reliable LLM evaluation. Unlike traditional ML metrics that focus on numerical accuracy, effective LLM metrics define precise quality standards using natural language rules that align with real-world requirements.In Prem’s Agentic Evaluation system, metrics are composed of rubrics - structured rules that specify exactly what constitutes good output. These rubrics transform subjective quality judgments into consistent, automated checks that provide transparent, actionable feedback.
When LLMs move from development to production, evaluation becomes critical for:
Risk mitigation - Catching failures before they reach users
Model accountability - Understanding exactly why outputs succeed or fail
Production readiness - Ensuring models meet business and compliance requirements
Continuous improvement - Identifying specific areas for enhancement
Traditional metrics like BLEU or ROUGE barely scratch the surface for LLM evaluation. Good metrics provide the diagnostic clarity needed to build trustworthy AI systems.
Start by articulating what “good” looks like in plain language. Be specific about:Positive rules (what the output should include):
“Output must contain all relevant ingredients”
“Response should be in a professional, helpful tone”
“Answer must cite specific sources when making claims”
Negative rules (what to avoid):
“No duplicate items allowed”
“Avoid technical jargon or overly complex language”
“Do not include unrelated information”
The best part is, you do not have to write this positive or negative rules. Prem’s intelligence will do it for you.
Write metrics as if you’re instructing a human evaluator. The clearer your natural language description, the better Prem’s system can translate it into automated checks.
Here is an example of a good metric:You can add these metrics on the Metrics Tab. As you can see, all we have to write is a very good description of what we want to evaluate.
What should the LLM do and what should it not do. That’s it, Prem’s system will take care of the rest.
The output must be a syntactically valid JSON object. It should include all required fields: “summary”, “key_points”, and “confidence_score”. Make sure the structure adheres to JSON standards—no trailing commas, missing brackets, or malformed types. This ensures smooth integration with downstream tools expecting a consistent schema.
Content Quality:
The summary must accurately reflect the main themes and important information from the source text. Avoid introducing any unsupported claims, speculations, or personal interpretations. The content should remain grounded in the original material and aim to be as informative and objective as possible.
Tone and Style:
The response should maintain a professional and neutral tone throughout. Use clear, concise language and prefer active voice to passive constructions. Avoid technical jargon unless explicitly required for the context, and aim for maximum readability and accessibility across varied audiences.
Completeness Checks:
Ensure that all relevant information—such as dates, names, and locations mentioned in the input—is correctly extracted and included. Do not omit any key entities, and refrain from adding fictional or inferred details not present in the source. The output should be a faithful and complete representation of the original content.
Good metrics transform evaluation from a black box into a transparent, improvement-focused process. By defining clear quality standards upfront, you enable continuous model refinement and build the foundation for trustworthy AI deployment.