Llm evaluation retrospectives: measuring ai quality & performance (2026)

The hardest question in AI product development is deceptively simple: "Is the model good enough?"

Traditional software has clear answers. Code either compiles or doesn't. Tests pass or fail. But LLMs exist in a gray zone. The same prompt produces different outputs. Quality is subjective. "Good enough" depends on context, use case, and user expectations.

This is why LLM evaluation retrospectives are critical. They provide structure for teams to answer: Did we improve? Are we production-ready? What specific quality issues remain? Where should we focus next?

According to AI Engineering Metrics 2025, teams that run structured LLM evaluation retrospectives ship 40% faster than those relying on ad-hoc quality assessments. This guide shows you how to implement evaluation retrospectives used by Anthropic, OpenAI, and leading AI startups.

Table of Contents

1. The LLM Evaluation Challenge
2. The Four-Dimensional Evaluation Framework
3. Automated Evaluation Metrics
4. Human Evaluation Loops
5. RLHF Retrospectives
6. Evaluation Tools & Platforms
7. Case Study: Anthropic's Constitutional AI Evaluation
8. Action Items for Evaluation Improvement
9. FAQ

The LLM Evaluation Challenge

Why Traditional Testing Fails for LLMs

Traditional software testing:

def test_get_user():
    user = get_user_by_id(123)
    assert user.name == "Alice"  # Always true or always false

LLM testing:

def test_summarize_article():
    summary = llm.summarize(article)
    assert ???  # What makes a "good" summary?
    # - Length? (50-100 words?)
    # - Accuracy? (How do we measure?)
    # - Coherence? (Subjective?)
    # - Completeness? (Includes key points?)

The Three Evaluation Axes

1. Accuracy: Is the output factually correct?

2. Relevance: Does it answer the user's question?

3. Quality: Is it well-written, coherent, and useful?

Each axis requires different evaluation methods:

- Accuracy → Automated fact-checking, human verification

- Relevance → Semantic similarity, human judgment

- Quality → Human preference, stylistic analysis

Why Retrospectives Matter

LLM evaluation isn't a one-time gate. It's continuous:

- Models evolve: GPT-4 → GPT-4 Turbo changed behavior

- Use cases expand: What worked for Q&A fails for creative writing

- User expectations shift: "Good enough" in 2023 ≠ good enough in 2026

- Costs change: Evaluation budget affects what's feasible

Retrospectives create feedback loops: Evaluate → Learn → Improve → Evaluate.

The Four-Dimensional Evaluation Framework

Dimension 1: Accuracy & Factuality

What to measure:

- Factual correctness (are claims true?)

- Hallucination rate (% of outputs containing false information)

- Citation quality (are sources real and relevant?)

- Consistency (does the model contradict itself?)

Evaluation methods:

Automated fact-checking:

# Example: Vectara HHEM (Hughes Hallucination Evaluation Model)
from vectara import HallucinationDetector

detector = HallucinationDetector()
response = llm.generate("What is the capital of France?")
hallucination_score = detector.evaluate(response)
# Returns 0-1 score (0 = likely hallucination, 1 = likely factual)

Human verification:

- Sample 50-100 outputs per sprint

- Fact-checkers verify each claim

- Tag hallucinations by type (factual error, unsupported claim, citation issue)

Metrics to track:

Accuracy rate = Factually correct outputs / Total outputs
Hallucination rate = Outputs with hallucinations / Total outputs
Citation accuracy = Valid citations / Total citations

Dimension 2: Relevance & Instruction Following

What to measure:

- Does the output address the prompt?

- Does it follow format requirements?

- Does it respect constraints (length, tone, style)?

Evaluation methods:

Semantic similarity:

# Cosine similarity between prompt intent and response
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

model = SentenceTransformer('all-MiniLM-L6-v2')
prompt_embedding = model.encode("Explain quantum computing simply")
response_embedding = model.encode(llm_response)
similarity = cosine_similarity(prompt_embedding, response_embedding)
# Higher score = more relevant

Instruction following score:

- Define explicit criteria (e.g., "must include 3 examples")

- Automated check: Count examples in output

- Binary score: 1 if criteria met, 0 if not

Metrics to track:

Relevance score = Average semantic similarity (0-1)
Instruction following rate = Outputs meeting all criteria / Total outputs
Off-topic rate = Outputs that don't address prompt / Total outputs

Dimension 3: Quality & User Preference

What to measure:

- Coherence (is it well-structured?)

- Helpfulness (does it solve the user's problem?)

- Clarity (is it easy to understand?)

- Tone appropriateness (professional, casual, empathetic?)

Evaluation methods:

Human preference scoring:

Rating scale (1-5):
1 = Unusable (incoherent, unhelpful)
2 = Poor (major issues, requires significant editing)
3 = Acceptable (minor issues, mostly usable)
4 = Good (high quality, minimal edits needed)
5 = Excellent (exceeds expectations, publish as-is)

A/B preference testing:

Present two outputs to evaluators:
"Which response is better?"
- Response A: [GPT-4 output]
- Response B: [Claude 3.5 output]

Track: % preferring A, % preferring B, % neutral

Metrics to track:

Average quality score = Sum of all ratings / Total ratings
Excellent rate = Outputs rated 4-5 / Total outputs
User acceptance rate = Outputs users accept without editing / Total outputs

Dimension 4: Safety & Bias

What to measure:

- Harmful content (violence, illegal activity, self-harm)

- Bias (demographic representation, stereotypes)

- Privacy violations (PII leakage)

- Jailbreak susceptibility

Evaluation methods:

Automated safety scoring:

# Example: OpenAI Moderation API
import openai

response = llm.generate(user_prompt)
moderation = openai.Moderation.create(input=response)
if moderation['results'][0]['flagged']:
    categories = moderation['results'][0]['categories']
    # Flag: harassment, hate, self-harm, sexual, violence

Bias detection:

# Test across demographic variations
prompts = [
    "Write a recommendation for {name}, a software engineer.",
]
names = ["James", "Jamal", "Wei", "Maria"]  # Diverse names

for name in names:
    response = llm.generate(prompt.format(name=name))
    analyze_sentiment(response)  # Check for bias patterns

Metrics to track:

Safety violation rate = Flagged outputs / Total outputs
Bias score = Statistical difference in sentiment across demographics
PII leakage rate = Outputs containing PII / Total outputs
Jailbreak success rate = Successful adversarial prompts / Total attempts

Automated Evaluation Metrics

Automated metrics enable continuous evaluation at scale. Here are the most valuable metrics for retrospectives:

Classic NLP Metrics

BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy)

- Measures n-gram precision vs. reference text

- Range: 0-1 (higher is better)

- Use case: Translation, summarization (when reference available)

- Limitation: Doesn't capture semantic meaning

from nltk.translate.bleu_score import sentence_bleu

reference = [["The", "cat", "sat", "on", "the", "mat"]]
candidate = ["The", "cat", "is", "on", "the", "mat"]
score = sentence_bleu(reference, candidate)  # 0.75

ROUGE (Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation)

- Measures n-gram recall vs. reference text

- Variants: ROUGE-1 (unigrams), ROUGE-2 (bigrams), ROUGE-L (longest common subsequence)

- Use case: Summarization, content generation

- Limitation: Requires reference text

BERTScore

- Semantic similarity using contextual embeddings

- Range: 0-1 (higher is better)

- Use case: Paraphrasing, question answering

- Advantage: Captures semantic meaning (unlike BLEU/ROUGE)

from bert_score import score

references = ["The cat sat on the mat."]
candidates = ["A feline rested on the rug."]
P, R, F1 = score(candidates, references, lang="en")
# F1: 0.89 (high semantic similarity despite different words)

LLM-as-Judge Metrics

Use one LLM to evaluate another LLM's outputs:

# GPT-4 as judge
judge_prompt = f"""
You are an expert evaluator. Rate this response on a scale of 1-5:

User question: {user_question}
AI response: {llm_response}

Criteria:
- Accuracy (are facts correct?)
- Relevance (does it answer the question?)
- Clarity (is it easy to understand?)

Provide a score (1-5) and brief justification.
"""

evaluation = gpt4.generate(judge_prompt)
# Output: "Score: 4/5. Response is accurate and relevant..."

Advantages:

- Flexible (can evaluate any criteria)

- Scalable (automated)

- Nuanced (understands context)

Disadvantages:

- Costly ($0.01-0.03 per evaluation with GPT-4)

- Biased (GPT-4 may prefer GPT-style outputs)

- Unreliable (judge can be inconsistent)

Task-Specific Metrics

Code generation:

# Does generated code execute?
execution_success_rate = Successful runs / Total code samples

# Does it pass tests?
test_pass_rate = Code passing all tests / Total code samples

# Syntax correctness
syntax_error_rate = Code with syntax errors / Total code samples

Classification tasks:

# Standard ML metrics
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, precision_score, recall_score, f1_score

accuracy = accuracy_score(true_labels, predicted_labels)
precision = precision_score(true_labels, predicted_labels)
recall = recall_score(true_labels, predicted_labels)
f1 = f1_score(true_labels, predicted_labels)

Summarization:

# Length constraint adherence
length_compliance = Summaries within target length / Total summaries

# Key point coverage (automated)
# Check if summary includes predefined key phrases
key_point_coverage = Summaries containing key points / Total summaries

Human Evaluation Loops

Automated metrics are fast but limited. Human evaluation captures nuance, context, and real user needs.

Setting Up Human Evaluation

1. Define clear rubrics

Example rubric for customer support AI:

2. Sample strategically

Don't evaluate everything. Sample:

- Random sample: 50 responses per week (baseline quality)

- Edge cases: Longest responses, highest confidence, lowest confidence

- User-flagged: Responses users rated poorly or reported

- Prompt variations: 10 responses per major prompt change

3. Assign diverse evaluators

• Domain experts: Evaluate accuracy (e.g., medical professionals for health AI)
• End users: Evaluate helpfulness and clarity
• Adversarial evaluators: Try to find failures (red team)

4. Track inter-rater reliability

If evaluators disagree significantly, your rubric needs refinement:

from sklearn.metrics import cohen_kappa_score

rater1_scores = [4, 5, 3, 4, 5]
rater2_scores = [4, 4, 3, 5, 5]
agreement = cohen_kappa_score(rater1_scores, rater2_scores)
# >0.8 = strong agreement, 0.4-0.8 = moderate, <0.4 = poor

Human Evaluation Workflows

Workflow 1: Weekly quality audit

Monday:
1. Randomly sample 50 AI responses from past week
2. Assign 25 to Evaluator A, 25 to Evaluator B
3. Evaluators rate using rubric by Wednesday

Thursday (Retrospective):
4. Calculate average scores per criterion
5. Identify lowest-scoring categories
6. Review specific failure examples as team
7. Create action items for improvement

Workflow 2: Prompt change validation

When deploying new prompt:
1. Generate 20 responses with old prompt
2. Generate 20 responses with new prompt (same inputs)
3. Blind A/B test: Evaluators don't know which is which
4. Calculate: % preferring new prompt
5. If <60% prefer new prompt, investigate why
6. Require 70%+ preference for production rollout

Workflow 3: Continuous feedback loop

Daily:
1. Users rate AI responses (thumbs up/down)
2. Flag responses with thumbs down for review
3. Team member reviews 10 flagged responses per day

Weekly retrospective:
4. Categorize failure types (accuracy, relevance, tone)
5. Identify patterns (e.g., "struggles with pricing questions")
6. Prioritize top 3 failure types for improvement

RLHF Retrospectives

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is how modern LLMs (GPT-4, Claude 3) are trained to be helpful, harmless, and honest. RLHF retrospectives evaluate this alignment process.

What is RLHF?

Step 1: Supervised fine-tuning (SFT)

- Human labelers write ideal responses to prompts

- Model fine-tuned on these examples

Step 2: Reward model training

- Humans rank multiple responses (A > B > C)

- Reward model learns human preferences

Step 3: Reinforcement learning

- Model generates responses

- Reward model scores them

- Model optimized to maximize reward

RLHF Retrospective Framework

Question 1: Is our reward model accurate?

# Reward model evaluation
test_cases = [
    ("What's 2+2?", "4", "5"),  # Obvious: A better than B
    ("Explain quantum mechanics", response_A, response_B),  # Subtle
]

for prompt, response_A, response_B in test_cases:
    predicted_preference = reward_model.compare(response_A, response_B)
    actual_preference = human_raters.compare(response_A, response_B)

    agreement_rate = predicted == actual
# Target: >85% agreement with human raters

Question 2: Are we overfitting to the reward model?

"Reward hacking" occurs when the model exploits the reward model:

- Generates overly verbose responses (looks more helpful)

- Uses certain phrases reward model prefers

- Avoids saying "I don't know" even when uncertain

Detection:

During retrospective:
1. Review highest-reward responses from RL training
2. Ask: Would humans actually prefer these?
3. If reward model scores ≠ human preference, investigate

Question 3: Are we capturing diverse preferences?

Human preferences vary:

- Some users want concise answers

- Others want detailed explanations

- Cultural differences in politeness norms

Evaluation:

Test model across preference profiles:
- "Give me a brief answer" → Measure conciseness
- "Explain in detail" → Measure completeness
- Test across languages, regions

Goal: Model should adapt to stated preferences

RLHF Metrics to Track

Reward model accuracy = Agreement with human raters / Total comparisons
Preference diversity = Unique preference patterns captured / Total preferences
RL training stability = Consistent reward improvement over training steps
Over-optimization detection = Human preference vs. reward model score divergence

Evaluation Tools & Platforms

Enterprise Evaluation Platforms

1. Humanloop

- Best for: Prompt iteration with human evaluation

- Features:

- A/B testing with statistical significance

- Custom evaluation rubrics

- Evaluator assignment and tracking

- Prompt versioning

- Pricing: Starting at $99/month

- Use case: Teams iterating on prompts weekly

2. Braintrust

- Best for: Automated regression testing

- Features:

- Golden dataset management

- Automated eval runs on every prompt change

- Cost and latency tracking

- Side-by-side comparison

- Pricing: Free for individuals, teams at $500/month

- Use case: Catching quality regressions before production

3. Langfuse

- Best for: Open-source observability

- Features:

- Trace every LLM call

- User feedback integration (thumbs up/down)

- Custom evaluation scripts

- Self-hosted option

- Pricing: Free (open-source), cloud from $99/month

- Use case: Teams wanting full data control

4. LangSmith (LangChain)

- Best for: LangChain application evaluation

- Features:

- End-to-end tracing

- Dataset curation

- Production monitoring

- Integrates with LangChain

- Pricing: Free tier, paid from $39/month

- Use case: Teams using LangChain framework

Specialized Evaluation Tools

5. Vectara HHEM (Hallucination detection)

- API returns 0-1 hallucination score

- Free tier available

- Use in automated pipelines

6. Patronus AI (Enterprise LLM evaluation)

- Automated evaluation across 30+ criteria

- Custom evaluation models

- Compliance reporting (SOC 2, GDPR)

- Enterprise pricing

7. Arthur AI (Model monitoring)

- Drift detection (is model quality degrading?)

- Bias monitoring

- Explainability features

- Enterprise focused

DIY Evaluation Setup

Minimal viable evaluation stack:

# 1. Log every LLM call
import json

def log_llm_call(prompt, response, metadata):
    with open('llm_logs.jsonl', 'a') as f:
        f.write(json.dumps({
            'timestamp': datetime.now().isoformat(),
            'prompt': prompt,
            'response': response,
            'model': metadata['model'],
            'latency': metadata['latency'],
            'cost': metadata['cost'],
        }) + '\n')

# 2. Weekly random sampling
def sample_for_review(n=50):
    logs = read_logs('llm_logs.jsonl')
    sample = random.sample(logs, n)
    save_to_spreadsheet(sample, 'weekly_review.csv')

# 3. Human evaluation in spreadsheet
# Evaluators rate: accuracy (1-5), relevance (1-5), quality (1-5)

# 4. Calculate metrics
def calculate_metrics():
    reviews = read_csv('weekly_review.csv')
    avg_accuracy = reviews['accuracy'].mean()
    avg_relevance = reviews['relevance'].mean()
    avg_quality = reviews['quality'].mean()
    return {
        'accuracy': avg_accuracy,
        'relevance': avg_relevance,
        'quality': avg_quality,
    }

Cost: $0 (free tools, manual process)

Time investment: 2-3 hours/week

Good for: Early-stage products, <10K LLM calls/month

Case Study: Anthropic's Constitutional AI Evaluation

Anthropic's Constitutional AI approach provides a model for evaluation retrospectives. Based on their research papers and blog posts:

The Problem

Traditional RLHF had issues:

- Human labelers were inconsistent

- Harmful content detection was subjective

- Scaling human evaluation was expensive

The Solution: Constitutional AI

Phase 1: Supervised learning on constitution

- Define "constitution" (set of principles like "don't help with illegal activity")

- Model generates responses, critiques itself, revises

- Fine-tune on revised responses

Phase 2: RL from AI feedback (RLAIF)

- Model generates pairs of responses

- AI evaluator ranks them based on constitution

- Train reward model on AI preferences

- Use RL to optimize for reward

Retrospective Framework

Weekly evaluation retrospective:

Metrics reviewed:

- Helpfulness score: Average rating on helpful responses (target: >4.2/5)

- Harmlessness score: Rate of flagged responses (target: <2%)

- Honesty score: Hallucination rate on factual questions (target: <5%)

Process:

1. Sample 200 responses: 100 from helpful tasks, 100 from adversarial prompts

2. Human evaluation: Red team rates responses

3. Compare to constitution: Does model follow principles?

4. Identify failure patterns: Where does model violate constitution?

5. Update constitution: Add principles for new failure modes

6. Retrain: Run RL with updated constitution

Example findings (hypothetical):

Sprint 23 retrospective:

- ✅ Helpfulness improved: 4.18 → 4.31

- ⚠️ Harmlessness declined: 1.8% → 2.4% flagged responses

- ❌ New jailbreak: Users can bypass safety with Unicode characters

Action items:

- Investigate harmlessness decline (Owner: Safety team, Due: 2 weeks)

- Add Unicode normalization to input processing (Owner: Eng, Due: 1 week)

- Expand red team testing with encoding attacks (Owner: Red team, Due: ongoing)

Lessons from Anthropic's Approach

1. Codify values: Written constitution > implicit human preferences
2. AI-assisted evaluation: Scale evaluation with AI judges
3. Continuous red teaming: Adversarial testing finds edge cases
4. Transparent metrics: Public model cards show limitations
5. Iterative improvement: Constitution evolves with new failure modes

Action Items for Evaluation Improvement

Week 1: Establish Baseline

[ ] Define 3-5 evaluation criteria for your use case
[ ] Create evaluation rubric with 1-5 scale
[ ] Sample 50 recent AI responses
[ ] Assign to 2 evaluators, calculate inter-rater reliability
[ ] Document baseline metrics (avg scores per criterion)
Owner: Product + AI lead
Due: Week 1

Week 2-3: Implement Automated Metrics

[ ] Set up logging for all LLM calls (prompt, response, metadata)
[ ] Implement 2-3 automated metrics (BERTScore, length, etc.)
[ ] Create daily dashboard showing automated metrics
[ ] Set alerts for metric degradation (e.g., avg quality <3.5)
Owner: Engineering team
Due: Week 3

Week 4: Deploy Human Evaluation Loop

[ ] Set up weekly evaluation workflow
[ ] Assign roles: Who samples? Who evaluates? Who analyzes?
[ ] Create template for documenting findings
[ ] Run first weekly retrospective using evaluation data
Owner: Product team
Due: Week 4

Ongoing: Continuous Improvement

[ ] Weekly: Review automated metrics, flag anomalies
[ ] Weekly: Human evaluation of 50 samples
[ ] Bi-weekly: Team retrospective on evaluation findings
[ ] Monthly: Compare current month vs. previous month (trending?)
[ ] Quarterly: Reevaluate evaluation criteria (still relevant?)
Owner: Full team
Due: Ongoing

Advanced: A/B Testing Infrastructure

[ ] Implement prompt versioning system (PromptLayer, LangSmith)
[ ] Set up A/B test framework (% traffic to each variant)
[ ] Define success criteria (when to promote variant to prod)
[ ] Run first A/B test: Current prompt vs. optimized prompt
[ ] Document learnings, standardize A/B process
Owner: Engineering + Product
Due: Month 2-3

FAQ

Q: How many samples do we need for statistically significant evaluation?

A: It depends on your baseline and target improvement:

Minimal viable: 30-50 samples per week

- Enough to spot major issues

- Not statistically rigorous

- Good for early-stage products

Statistical significance: 200-400 samples

- Detect 10% quality changes with 95% confidence

- Required for A/B testing decisions

- Good for production features

Continuous monitoring: 1-2% of all requests

- Catches regressions quickly

- Enables trend analysis

- Good for high-traffic products (>100K requests/month)

Q: Should we use GPT-4 to evaluate Claude responses (or vice versa)?

A: Yes, but understand the biases:

Cross-model evaluation (GPT-4 judges Claude):

- ✅ No same-model bias

- ⚠️ May prefer GPT-4-style outputs (verbose, structured)

- Use for: Initial screening, large-scale evaluation

Same-model evaluation (GPT-4 judges GPT-4):

- ⚠️ May be overly lenient

- ✅ Understands model's "thinking"

- Use for: Catching obvious errors, format checking

Best practice: Use multiple judges (GPT-4 + Claude + human) and compare agreement.

Q: How do we evaluate creative outputs (stories, marketing copy)?

A: Use comparative evaluation, not absolute scoring:

Absolute scoring (difficult):

- "Rate this story 1-5" → Highly subjective

Comparative evaluation (easier):

- "Which story is better, A or B?" → 60-70% rater agreement

Elo rating system:

# Start all prompts at rating 1000
# Present pairs to evaluators
# Winner gains rating points, loser loses points
# After 50-100 comparisons, rank prompts by Elo rating

This is how ChatGPT Arena ranks models for creative tasks.

Q: What's the difference between online and offline evaluation?

A:

Offline evaluation (before production):

- Test on curated dataset

- Human evaluation on samples

- A/B test with internal users

- Pro: Safe, controlled

- Con: May not reflect real usage

Online evaluation (in production):

- User feedback (thumbs up/down, ratings)

- Behavior signals (accept rate, edit rate, abandonment)

- A/B tests with real users

- Pro: Real user data

- Con: Bad experiences affect real users

Best practice: Offline first (catch major issues), then online (validate with real usage).

Q: How do we handle disagreement between automated metrics and human evaluation?

A:

Scenario: Automated metrics show improvement, but human evaluation shows decline.

Investigation steps:

1. Check sample bias: Did we sample different types of requests?

2. Review rubric: Are we measuring what matters?

3. Examine edge cases: Automated metrics may miss specific failure modes

4. Trust humans: If disagreement persists, trust human judgment

Example:

- Automated: BLEU score increased 15%

- Human: Quality rating decreased from 4.1 to 3.8

- Investigation: New prompt is more verbose (higher BLEU) but less relevant (lower quality)

- Decision: Revert prompt, optimize for relevance not verbosity

Q: How often should we run evaluation retrospectives?

A:

Weekly (recommended for most teams):

- Quick feedback loop

- Catches quality regressions early

- Keeps evaluation top-of-mind

- 1-hour meeting, manageable prep

Bi-weekly (for stable products):

- Good for mature AI features

- Reduces meeting overhead

- Still frequent enough to catch trends

After major changes (always):

- New model (GPT-4 → GPT-4.5)

- Prompt rewrite

- New feature launch

- Run retrospective within 1 week of change

Q: What if our evaluation shows the model is "not good enough" but we need to ship?

A: Ship with guardrails:

Option 1: Human-in-the-loop

- AI generates draft, human reviews before sending

- Example: Customer support drafts, agent reviews

Option 2: Confidence thresholds

- Only show AI output if confidence >0.8

- Fall back to human or "I don't know" if uncertain

Option 3: Limited rollout

- Ship to 10% of users, monitor closely

- Expand if metrics meet thresholds

Option 4: Clear disclaimers

- "AI-generated content, may contain errors"

- Provide feedback mechanism

- Set user expectations appropriately

Don't: Ship without monitoring and rollback plan.

Conclusion

LLM evaluation is the foundation of AI product quality. Without structured evaluation retrospectives, teams operate blind—unable to answer "are we improving?" or "are we production-ready?"

Key takeaways:

1. Use the four-dimensional framework: Accuracy, relevance, quality, safety
2. Combine automated and human evaluation: Automated for scale, human for nuance
3. Establish baseline metrics: You can't improve what you don't measure
4. Run weekly retrospectives: Fast feedback loops catch issues early
5. Invest in evaluation infrastructure: Tools pay for themselves in quality improvements
6. Learn from RLHF practices: Constitutional AI, reward modeling, red teaming
7. A/B test prompt changes: Don't deploy without validation
8. Document everything: Evaluation rubrics, findings, decisions

The teams that master LLM evaluation in 2026 will build better products, ship with confidence, and stay ahead in the AI-first era.

Related AI Retrospective Articles

• AI Product Retrospectives: LLMs, Prompts & Model Performance
• Prompt Engineering Retrospectives: Optimizing LLM Interactions
• AI Ethics & Safety Retrospectives: Responsible AI Development
• AI Feature Launch Retrospectives: Shipping LLM Products
• RAG System Retrospectives: Retrieval-Augmented Generation

---

Ready to implement structured LLM evaluation? Try NextRetro's LLM evaluation retrospective template – track accuracy, relevance, quality, and safety with your AI team.