AgentPing for product teams

Every dashboard is green.
The answers are getting worse.

An AI feature does not fail the way a service fails. It returns well-formed output, a 200, and a slightly worse answer than it did last month. There is no exception to catch, so nothing pages anyone, and the first real signal is a support inbox or a retention chart. AgentPing scores live runs so degradation shows up as a line on a chart with a deploy marker next to it.

summariser · judge score↓ 4.2 to 3.8
  • cites a source pass
  • answers the question pass
  • stays on policy fail

Three ways quality degrades without a single alert.

01

The model moved under you

You changed nothing. The output changed anyway.

A provider-side update shifts behaviour on the ambiguous inputs first. Your eval set is built from clean examples, so it passes. The regression lands only on the messy real traffic that the suite never contained.

02

The suite that stopped representing anyone

Ninety cases, written eight months ago, still passing.

Since then a new segment arrived, onboarding copy changed and a feature routed a new category of input into the same agent. The suite tests the old distribution faithfully and reports health for traffic that no longer exists.

03

The churn nobody filed

Being wrong more often does not generate tickets.

Users do not report a feature that is subtly less useful. They use it less, then stop, and the decline gets attributed to seasonality because there was never a quality number next to the retention number.

Make degradation visible while it is still a chart.

Score a sample of live runs against a rubric, per feature and per customer, on the same record that carries cost and status.

Quality on live traffic

Sampled scoring on real runs, not on a fixed suite. A trend line with deploy markers turns a five-week mystery into a two-day diagnosis.

summariser · judge score↓ 4.2 to 3.8
  • cites a source pass
  • answers the question pass
  • stays on policy fail

Explore Verify

Know it still runs

A feature that silently stops producing output is the fastest quality regression there is. Freshness alerting catches the runs that never happened.

support-triage · schedulelive
support-triage missed its 14:00 run paged on-call · last ok 13:00 · 247 runs clean before

Explore Pulse

What better answers cost

Quality and cost on the same run, so "use a bigger model" becomes a measured trade rather than an argument between two people guessing.

spend · this month↑ on budget
$5,382
spent
$0.094
cost / successful run
content-writer$2,189
research-agent$1,474
support-triage$685
email-classifier$262

Explore Spend

Our evals pass. Why would we need this?
Because an eval suite tests the cases you thought of when you wrote it, and production traffic moves. New segments, new phrasings and upstream product changes all shift the input distribution while the suite keeps testing the old one faithfully. The suite is not wrong, it is answering a question about the past. Scoring a sample of live runs with the same rubric tells you whether it still represents what users actually send.
How do you score quality without a human reviewing everything?
A rubric applied by a model to a sample of live runs, usually somewhere between two and five percent. You are looking for a trend across days rather than a verdict on any single run, so a small sample is enough and a larger one mostly costs money without changing the decision. Individual scores are noisy; the line moving down after a deploy is the signal.
The provider says the model version is pinned. Can output still change?
In practice, yes, and this is the failure teams are least prepared for. Behaviour can shift within a version, and aliases get updated. Because those shifts tend to affect ambiguous inputs before clean ones, and eval sets are usually built from clean representative examples, your suite is systematically the last thing to notice.
How would we connect quality to churn?
Score runs per feature and per customer, then compare the quality trend for accounts that churned against those that stayed. Degraded AI output rarely arrives as a bug report, it arrives as quiet disengagement, so the connection is only visible if the quality signal is attached to the same identifiers your retention analysis uses.
Does this replace our eval suite?
No, and you should be wary of anything that claims to. The suite catches regressions you can anticipate, before release. Sampled scoring catches the ones you cannot, after release. They are complements, and a team with only one of them has a blind spot in a predictable place.

Find out what your users are actually getting.

Score one feature on live traffic for a fortnight and compare it against what your eval suite says. The gap is usually the interesting part.

For SaaS teams For customer support All features