Building Production-Grade LLM Evaluation Pipelines: From Vibes to Metrics How we replaced "looks good to me" with automated evaluation catching 92% of hallucinations before deployment The Problem: Why "Vibe Checks" Fail in Production Three months ago, our team shipped a RAG-based customer support assistant. It worked great in testing — we'd ask it questions, read the answers, and say "yeah, that looks right." Then it hit production. A customer asked about their billing cycle. The assistant confidently cited a policy that didn't exist. Another asked about API rate limits and got numbers from a competitor's documentation. By the time we caught it, 500+ users had seen hallucinated responses. The post-mortem was brutal: we had zero automated evaluation . Our test process was literally "ask 5 questions, read answers, thumbs up." What Production Evaluation Actually Needs Academic benchmarks (MMLU, HellaSwag) don't tell you if your system works for your use case. Production evaluation needs: Domain-specific judges — Your criteria, not generic "helpfulness" Speed — Evaluation must run in CI/CD, not overnight Regression detection — Know immediately when a prompt change breaks things CI/CD integration — Block merges that degrade quality Golden dataset management — Versioned, stratified, growing test cases Architecture: The Evaluation Pipeline ┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ Test Cases │────▶│ LLM Under │────▶│ Judge Ensemble │────▶│ Metrics & │ │ (Golden Set)│ │ Test │ │ - Faithfulness │ │ Regression │ └─────────────┘ └──────────────┘ │ - Instruction F. │ │ Detection │ │ - JSON Schema │ └──────┬───────┘ │ - Custom LLM │ ▼ └────────────────────┘ ┌──────────────┐ │ Dashboard/ │ │ PR Comments │ └──────────────┘ Core Abstractions # eval/base.py @dataclass ( frozen = True ) class TestCase : id : str input : dict [ str , Any ] expected : dict [ str , Any ] | None = None tags : list [ str ] = field ( default_factory = list ) # ["edge-case",

Alphabet, Google's parent company, is reportedly working on a new chip designed to make its Gemini models run much more efficiently.

Publicado originalmente en Justicia Liberal . El hecho y su lectura económica La reconfiguración de lealtades internas en el bloque peronista del Congreso que reporta LA17 podría leerse como un episodio más del folletín peronista: disputas de conducción, alineamientos con gobernadores, señales cruzadas hacia 2027. Pero desde una perspectiva económica aplicada, el fenómeno tiene consecuencias concretas sobre variables que le importan a cualquier empresa, ahorrista o asalariado argentino. La inestabilidad legislativa no es un dato político neutro. Es un factor de riesgo que los mercados descuentan en tiempo real. Incertidumbre legislativa y su precio en variables macro Cuando un bloque opositor mayoritario se fragmenta, el resultado inmediato no es la debilidad del peronismo: es la imprevisibilidad del Congreso. Y la imprevisibilidad tiene precio. El riesgo país argentino, que según datos del BCRA y operadores de mercado secundario rondó los 600-700 puntos básicos durante buena parte de 2025, es en parte una prima por incertidumbre institucional. Cada vez que el Poder Legislativo se convierte en un tablero de negociaciones opacas —donde un artículo fiscal puede ser bloqueado, modificado o aprobado según quién necesite qué favor de quién— la tasa de descuento que aplican los inversores sobre activos argentinos sube. Eso se traduce en mayor costo de financiamiento para el Tesoro y, por efecto derrame, para el crédito privado. El mecanismo es simple: si no sabés qué va a salir del Congreso la semana próxima, no invertís a largo plazo. Y si no invertís, no generás empleo formal ni capacidad productiva. El déficit como rehén de la interna El equilibrio fiscal que el gobierno de Javier Milei logró sostener durante 2024 —el primer superávit financiero en más de una década, según datos del Ministerio de Economía— depende en parte de que el Congreso no apruebe gastos que el Ejecutivo no puede financiar sin emisión. Ahí es donde la fragmentación peronista se vuelve peligrosa de

Introducing vernLLM: A Resilience Layer for LLM Applications Building production-ready LLM applications is not just about sending prompts and receiving responses. Real-world AI systems need to handle timeouts, provider failures, rate limits, inconsistent outputs, and reliability issues. That is where vernLLM comes in. vernLLM is a lightweight resilience layer for OpenAI-compatible chat completion APIs , providing a single interface with built-in retries, timeouts, circuit breaking, caching, structured output, and usage tracking. Instead of rebuilding the same reliability features for every LLM project, vernLLM gives you the tools needed to make your AI integrations more robust from the start. Features Automatic retries with backoff Transient failures happen. vernLLM automatically retries recoverable errors while failing fast on validation errors and non-retryable responses. Timeouts & cancellation Prevent hanging requests with configurable timeouts and cancellation support. Circuit breaker protection Automatically stop sending requests to failing providers and recover when the service becomes healthy again. Structured output with type safety Pass a Zod schema and receive validated, typed results back. const result = await llm . call ({ systemPrompt : ' Return JSON: { "skills": string[] } ' , userContent : ' Extract skills from: ... ' , schema : SkillsSchema // zod schema }); Provider-native JSON Schema support Constrain model generation itself instead of only validating responses afterward. Built-in caching support Cache LLM responses using your own cache adapter with cachedCall and cachedLLMCall . One interface across providers Use the same API across multiple providers: OpenAI Groq Mistral DeepSeek Cerebras Together AI Fireworks AI Ollama Anthropic Gemini AWS Bedrock Any HTTP-compatible provider through fromFetch Why vernLLM? Many LLM applications end up creating their own wrappers around provider SDKs to handle: retry logic API failures provider switching respons

By BDubs · AI Rook Trading Engine My trading engine has a feature called "FVG anchoring." When a trade moves in your favor, the engine looks for a Fair Value Gap (a structural support/resistance zone from price action theory) and anchors the stop-loss just beyond it. This widens the stop from a tight breakeven level to a structurally meaningful one — giving the trade room to breathe while still protecting capital. It worked great for long trades. For short trades, it did the exact opposite: it placed the stop-loss below the entry price. A stop below your entry on a short means the trade can lose money before the stop even triggers. Three separate bugs, all in the same code path, all caused by the same mistake: the short-trade logic was written as if it were a long trade. The Context The Rook Engine manages trade exits in phases. Phase 1 is the initial breakeven guard. Phase 2 tries to anchor the stop to a reverse FVG. Phase 3 switches to trailing. The FVG anchoring code lives across two files: fvg-detector.js (finds the FVG) and exit-manager.js (uses it to set the stop). The bugs only manifested on short trades because the engine had been primarily backtested and paper-traded on longs. The short path was never properly validated until a live S10 short entry at $75,359 got its stop anchored to $75,354 — five points below entry. The trade was stopped out immediately. Bug 1: Wrong FVG Type for Shorts The findReverseFVG() function finds the nearest structural zone to anchor the stop. For longs, you want a bearish FVG above price (resistance). For shorts, you want… also a bearish FVG above price (resistance). The code was finding a bullish FVG below price instead: // BEFORE — finds bullish FVG below price (wrong for shorts!) const candidates = active . filter ( f => f . type === ' bullish ' && f . top < currentPrice ) . sort (( a , b ) => b . top - a . top ); A bullish FVG below price is a support zone. Placing a stop just above support when you're short is like placing

What Happened On July 20, 2026, cybersecurity firm Group-IB disclosed a new espionage implant dubbed HollowGraph that hijacks compromised Microsoft 365 mailboxes to run a command-and-control (C2) channel hidden inside calendar events. The malware attaches encrypted files to calendar entries dated May 13, 2050 — far enough in the future that a mailbox owner would never scroll to them — and retrieves operator instructions from the same dead drop. All traffic moves through the Microsoft Graph API, making the activity indistinguishable from legitimate M365 usage. At least 12 systems have been infected, with three actively communicating with the threat actor between June 3 and July 9, 2026. The indicators point to a targeted espionage campaign focused on Israeli organizations . Technical Analysis HollowGraph is a lightweight .NET DLL that supports only two commands: GET and SEND . To receive tasking, it queries the compromised mailbox's calendar for an event titled in the format "Event ID: <7-char-taskID>", downloads the attached file, and decrypts it using RSA and AES-256-GCM. To exfiltrate data, the implant creates a new calendar entry titled "Boss{..}ID{..}" and uploads stolen files encrypted with the attacker's public RSA key. The Group-IB research team described the mailbox calendar as a "covert dead-drop," with HollowGraph retrieving commands from events scheduled within a fixed one-hour window between 22:00 and 23:00 UTC on the far-future date. The hybrid encryption scheme uses separate RSA key pairs for inbound and outbound channels, keeping them cryptographically isolated. A second, unencrypted channel runs over DNS tunneling . HollowGraph refreshes its Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) credentials by querying IPv6 AAAA records from the attacker-controlled domain cloudlanecdn[.]com . Each returned IPv6 address yields 14 usable payload bytes, which the malware assembles and decodes as UTF-8 text to update its logAzure.txt configuration file — a file masquerading as a

Judge grants restraining order, saying merger "likely to violate antitrust laws."

Make meeting notes awesome, type 4x faster, translate live Discussion | Link

Index funds are touted as one of the safest ways to invest. Rather than picking and choosing individual stocks, index funds let you bet on the market as a whole. So what happens when a company like SpaceX - a giant gamble, and, in my opinion, terribly overpriced - is fast-tracked into the Nasdaq-100? Does […]

Directly added to your Samsung Wallet account, it’s yet another cash-back credit card, this time tailored for Samsung stans.

Samsung's credit card gives you up to five percent back when you buy its products.

The agency stressed that the July 17 voluntary recall from Taylor Farms still stands. The supplier has been linked to the ongoing cyclospora outbreak.