chore: import upstream snapshot with attribution
This commit is contained in:
+317
@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
|
||||
# Behavioral Evals
|
||||
|
||||
Behavioral evaluations (evals) are tests designed to validate the agent's
|
||||
behavior in response to specific prompts. They serve as a critical feedback loop
|
||||
for changes to system prompts, tool definitions, and other model-steering
|
||||
mechanisms, and as a tool for assessing feature reliability by model, and
|
||||
preventing regressions.
|
||||
|
||||
> [!TIP] **Agent Automation**: If you are pair-programming with Gemini CLI, you
|
||||
> can leverage the **behavioral-evals skill** to automate fixing failing tests
|
||||
> or promoting incubation candidates.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why Behavioral Evals?
|
||||
|
||||
Unlike traditional **integration tests** which verify that the system functions
|
||||
correctly (e.g., "does the file writer actually write to disk?"), behavioral
|
||||
evals verify that the model _chooses_ to take the correct action (e.g., "does
|
||||
the model decide to write to disk when asked to save code?").
|
||||
|
||||
They are also distinct from broad **industry benchmarks** (like SWE-bench).
|
||||
While benchmarks measure general capabilities across complex challenges, our
|
||||
behavioral evals focus on specific, granular behaviors relevant to the Gemini
|
||||
CLI's features.
|
||||
|
||||
### Key Characteristics
|
||||
|
||||
- **Feedback Loop**: They help us understand how changes to prompts or tools
|
||||
affect the model's decision-making.
|
||||
- _Did a change to the system prompt make the model less likely to use tool
|
||||
X?_
|
||||
- _Did a new tool definition confuse the model?_
|
||||
- **Regression Testing**: They prevent regressions in model steering.
|
||||
- **Non-Determinism**: Unlike unit tests, LLM behavior can be non-deterministic.
|
||||
We distinguish between behaviors that should be robust (`ALWAYS_PASSES`) and
|
||||
those that are generally reliable but might occasionally vary
|
||||
(`USUALLY_PASSES`).
|
||||
|
||||
## Best Practices
|
||||
|
||||
When designing behavioral evals, aim for scenarios that accurately reflect
|
||||
real-world usage while remaining small and maintainable.
|
||||
|
||||
- **Realistic Complexity**: Evals should be complicated enough to be
|
||||
"realistic." They should operate on actual files and a source directory,
|
||||
mirroring how a real agent interacts with a workspace. Remember that the agent
|
||||
may behave differently in a larger codebase, so we want to avoid scenarios
|
||||
that are too simple to be realistic.
|
||||
- _Good_: An eval that provides a small, functional React component and asks
|
||||
the agent to add a specific feature, requiring it to read the file,
|
||||
understand the context, and write the correct changes.
|
||||
- _Bad_: An eval that simply asks the agent a trivia question or asks it to
|
||||
write a generic script without providing any local workspace context.
|
||||
- **Maintainable Size**: Evals should be small enough to reason about and
|
||||
maintain. We probably can't check in an entire repo as a test case, though
|
||||
over time we will want these evals to mature into more and more realistic
|
||||
scenarios.
|
||||
- _Good_: A test setup with 2-3 files (e.g., a source file, a config file, and
|
||||
a test file) that isolates the specific behavior being evaluated.
|
||||
- _Bad_: A test setup containing dozens of files from a complex framework
|
||||
where the setup logic itself is prone to breaking.
|
||||
- **Unambiguous and Reliable Assertions**: Assertions must be clear and specific
|
||||
to ensure the test passes for the right reason.
|
||||
- _Good_: Checking that a modified file contains a specific AST node or exact
|
||||
string, or verifying that a tool was called with with the right parameters.
|
||||
- _Bad_: Only checking for a tool call, which could happen for an unrelated
|
||||
reason. Expecting specific LLM output.
|
||||
- **Fail First**: Have tests that failed before your prompt or tool change. We
|
||||
want to be sure the test fails before your "fix". It's pretty easy to
|
||||
accidentally create a passing test that asserts behaviors we get for free. In
|
||||
general, every eval should be accompanied by prompt change, and most prompt
|
||||
changes should be accompanied by an eval.
|
||||
- _Good_: Observing a failure, writing an eval that reliably reproduces the
|
||||
failure, modifying the prompt/tool, and then verifying the eval passes.
|
||||
- _Bad_: Writing an eval that passes on the first run and assuming your new
|
||||
prompt change was responsible.
|
||||
- **Less is More**: Prefer fewer, more realistic tests that assert the major
|
||||
paths vs. more tests that are more unit-test like. These are evals, so the
|
||||
value is in testing how the agent works in a semi-realistic scenario.
|
||||
|
||||
## Creating an Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluations are located in the `evals` directory. Each evaluation is a Vitest
|
||||
test file that uses the `evalTest` function from `evals/test-helper.ts`.
|
||||
|
||||
### `evalTest`
|
||||
|
||||
The `evalTest` function is a helper that runs a single evaluation case. It takes
|
||||
two arguments:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `policy`: The consistency expectation for this test (`'ALWAYS_PASSES'` or
|
||||
`'USUALLY_PASSES'`).
|
||||
2. `evalCase`: An object defining the test case.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Policies
|
||||
|
||||
Policies control how strictly a test is validated.
|
||||
|
||||
- `ALWAYS_PASSES`: Tests expected to pass 100% of the time. These are typically
|
||||
trivial and test basic functionality. These run in every CI and can block PRs
|
||||
on failure.
|
||||
- `USUALLY_PASSES`: Tests expected to pass most of the time but may have some
|
||||
flakiness due to non-deterministic behaviors. These are run nightly and used
|
||||
to track the health of the product from build to build.
|
||||
|
||||
**All new behavioral evaluations must be created with the `USUALLY_PASSES`
|
||||
policy.** A subset that prove to be highly stable over time may be promoted to
|
||||
`ALWAYS_PASSES`. For more information, see
|
||||
[Test promotion process](#test-promotion-process).
|
||||
|
||||
#### `EvalCase` Properties
|
||||
|
||||
- `name`: The name of the evaluation case.
|
||||
- `prompt`: The prompt to send to the model.
|
||||
- `params`: An optional object with parameters to pass to the test rig (e.g.,
|
||||
settings).
|
||||
- `assert`: An async function that takes the test rig and the result of the run
|
||||
and asserts that the result is correct.
|
||||
- `log`: An optional boolean that, if set to `true`, will log the tool calls to
|
||||
a file in the `evals/logs` directory.
|
||||
|
||||
### Example
|
||||
|
||||
```typescript
|
||||
import { describe, expect } from 'vitest';
|
||||
import { evalTest } from './test-helper.js';
|
||||
|
||||
describe('my_feature', () => {
|
||||
// New tests MUST start as USUALLY_PASSES and be promoted based on consistency metrics
|
||||
evalTest('USUALLY_PASSES', {
|
||||
name: 'should do something',
|
||||
prompt: 'do it',
|
||||
assert: async (rig, result) => {
|
||||
// assertions
|
||||
},
|
||||
});
|
||||
});
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Running Evaluations
|
||||
|
||||
First, build the bundled Gemini CLI. You must do this after every code change.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm run build
|
||||
npm run bundle
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Always Passing Evals
|
||||
|
||||
To run the evaluations that are expected to always pass (CI safe):
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm run test:always_passing_evals
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### All Evals
|
||||
|
||||
To run all evaluations, including those that may be flaky ("usually passes"):
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npm run test:all_evals
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This command sets the `RUN_EVALS` environment variable to `1`, which enables the
|
||||
`USUALLY_PASSES` tests.
|
||||
|
||||
## Ensuring Eval is Stable Prior to Check-in
|
||||
|
||||
The
|
||||
[Evals: Nightly](https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/actions/workflows/evals-nightly.yml)
|
||||
run is considered to be the source of truth for the quality of an eval test.
|
||||
Each run of it executes a test 3 times in a row, for each supported model. The
|
||||
result is then scored 0%, 33%, 66%, or 100% respectively, to indicate how many
|
||||
of the individual executions passed.
|
||||
|
||||
Googlers can schedule a manual run against their branch by clicking the link
|
||||
above.
|
||||
|
||||
Tests should score at least 66% with key models including Gemini 3.1 pro, Gemini
|
||||
3.0 pro, and Gemini 3 flash prior to check in and they must pass 100% of the
|
||||
time before they are promoted.
|
||||
|
||||
## Test promotion process
|
||||
|
||||
To maintain a stable and reliable CI, all new behavioral evaluations follow a
|
||||
mandatory deflaking process.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Incubation**: You must create all new tests with the `USUALLY_PASSES`
|
||||
policy. This lets them be monitored in the nightly runs without blocking PRs.
|
||||
2. **Monitoring**: The test must complete at least 7 nightly runs across all
|
||||
supported models.
|
||||
3. **Promotion**: Promotion to `ALWAYS_PASSES` is conducted by the agent after
|
||||
verifying the 100% success rate requirement is met across many runs.
|
||||
|
||||
This promotion process is essential for preventing the introduction of flaky
|
||||
evaluations into the CI.
|
||||
|
||||
## Reporting
|
||||
|
||||
Results for evaluations are available on GitHub Actions:
|
||||
|
||||
- **CI Evals**: Included in the
|
||||
[E2E (Chained)](https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/actions/workflows/chained_e2e.yml)
|
||||
workflow. These must pass 100% for every PR.
|
||||
- **Nightly Evals**: Run daily via the
|
||||
[Evals: Nightly](https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/actions/workflows/evals-nightly.yml)
|
||||
workflow. These track the long-term health and stability of model steering.
|
||||
|
||||
### Nightly Report Format
|
||||
|
||||
The nightly workflow executes the full evaluation suite multiple times
|
||||
(currently 3 attempts) to account for non-determinism. These results are
|
||||
aggregated into a **Nightly Summary** attached to the workflow run.
|
||||
|
||||
## Regression Check Scripts
|
||||
|
||||
The project includes several scripts to automate high-signal regression checking
|
||||
in Pull Requests. These can also be run locally for debugging.
|
||||
|
||||
- **`scripts/get_trustworthy_evals.js`**: Analyzes nightly history to identify
|
||||
stable tests (80%+ aggregate pass rate).
|
||||
- **`scripts/run_regression_check.js`**: Runs a specific set of tests using the
|
||||
"Best-of-4" logic and "Dynamic Baseline Verification".
|
||||
- **`scripts/run_eval_regression.js`**: The main orchestrator that loops through
|
||||
models and generates the final PR report.
|
||||
|
||||
### Running Regression Checks Locally
|
||||
|
||||
You can simulate the PR regression check locally to verify your changes before
|
||||
pushing:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Run the full regression loop for a specific model
|
||||
MODEL_LIST=gemini-3-flash-preview node scripts/run_eval_regression.js
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
To debug a specific failing test with the same logic used in CI:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# 1. Get the Vitest pattern for trustworthy tests
|
||||
OUTPUT=$(node scripts/get_trustworthy_evals.js "gemini-3-flash-preview")
|
||||
|
||||
# 2. Run the regression logic for those tests
|
||||
node scripts/run_regression_check.js "gemini-3-flash-preview" "$OUTPUT"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### The Regression Quality Bar
|
||||
|
||||
Because LLMs are non-deterministic, the PR regression check uses a high-signal
|
||||
probabilistic approach rather than a 100% pass requirement:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Trustworthiness (60/80 Filter):** Only tests with a proven track record
|
||||
are run. A test must score at least **60% (2/3)** every single night and
|
||||
maintain an **80% aggregate** pass rate over the last 6 days.
|
||||
2. **The 50% Pass Rule:** In a PR, a test is considered a **Pass** if the model
|
||||
correctly performs the behavior at least half the time (**2 successes** out
|
||||
of up to 4 attempts).
|
||||
3. **Dynamic Baseline Verification:** If a test fails in a PR (e.g., 0/3), the
|
||||
system automatically checks the `main` branch. If it fails there too, it is
|
||||
marked as **Pre-existing** and cleared for the PR, ensuring you are only
|
||||
blocked by regressions caused by your specific changes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fixing Evaluations
|
||||
|
||||
#### How to interpret the report:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Pass Rate (%)**: Each cell represents the percentage of successful runs for
|
||||
a specific test in that workflow instance.
|
||||
- **History**: The table shows the pass rates for the last 7 nightly runs,
|
||||
allowing you to identify if a model's behavior is trending towards
|
||||
instability.
|
||||
- **Total Pass Rate**: An aggregate metric of all evaluations run in that batch.
|
||||
|
||||
A significant drop in the pass rate for a `USUALLY_PASSES` test—even if it
|
||||
doesn't drop to 0%—often indicates that a recent change to a system prompt or
|
||||
tool definition has made the model's behavior less reliable.
|
||||
|
||||
## Fixing Evaluations
|
||||
|
||||
If an evaluation is failing or has a regressed pass rate, ask the agent to
|
||||
investigate and fix the issue using the **behavioral-evals skill**. The agent
|
||||
will automate the following process:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Investigate**: Fetch the latest results from the nightly workflow using
|
||||
the `gh` CLI, identify the failing test, and review test trajectory logs in
|
||||
`evals/logs`.
|
||||
2. **Fix**: Suggest and apply targeted fixes to the prompt or tool definitions.
|
||||
It prioritizes minimal changes to `prompt.ts` and tool instructions,
|
||||
avoiding changing the test itself unless necessary.
|
||||
3. **Verify**: Re-run the test locally across multiple models to ensure
|
||||
stability.
|
||||
4. **Report**: Provide a summary of the success rate.
|
||||
|
||||
When investigating failures manually, you can enable verbose agent logs by
|
||||
setting the `GEMINI_DEBUG_LOG_FILE` environment variable.
|
||||
|
||||
### Best practices
|
||||
|
||||
It's highly recommended to manually review and/or ask the agent to iterate on
|
||||
any prompt changes, even if they pass all evals. The prompt should prefer
|
||||
positive traits ('do X') and resort to negative traits ('do not do X') only when
|
||||
unable to accomplish the goal with positive traits. Gemini is quite good at
|
||||
instrospecting on its prompt when asked the right questions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Promoting evaluations
|
||||
|
||||
Evaluations must be promoted from `USUALLY_PASSES` to `ALWAYS_PASSES` by the
|
||||
agent to ensure that the 100% success rate requirement is empirically met.
|
||||
|
||||
The agent automates the promotion by:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Investigating**: Analyzing the results of the last 7 nightly runs on the
|
||||
`main` branch.
|
||||
2. **Criteria Check**: Ensuring tests passed 100% of the time for ALL enabled
|
||||
models.
|
||||
3. **Promotion**: Updating the test file's policy to `ALWAYS_PASSES`.
|
||||
4. **Verification**: Running the promoted test locally to ensure correctness.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user