proomt

Search

Search posts, papers, and topics

All posts

Grafana LabsIvana Huckova8 min readintermediate

What if your agent's hallucinations had a budget? How to start using SLOs for agent behavior

Summary

This article proposes applying Service Level Objectives (SLOs) and error budgets to AI agent behavior to measure and manage quality beyond traditional metrics. It suggests using "evaluations" (often by other LLMs or deterministic checks) to quantify agent behaviors like groundedness or fulfillment, turning qualitative aspects into measurable metrics. These metrics then enable the use of SLOs and…

  • Traditional observability metrics (latency, errors) don't assess AI agent quality like groundedness or fulfillment.
  • Evaluations (model-based or deterministic) quantify agent behavior, turning qualitative aspects into measurable scores.
  • Agent quality is a set of independent behaviors (e.g., groundedness, toxicity, cost), each needing its own measurement.
  • SLOs and error budgets provide a framework to manage agent reliability, allowing experimentation within a defined budget.

Engineers building and operating AI agents should care about this, as it provides a structured, data-driven approach to measure and manage agent quality and reliability, moving beyond subjective assessments.

7/10

Related reading

  1. Your Agent Aced the Task. Will It Do It Again?

    The post introduces the Consistency Analyzer, a cheap black‑box diagnostic that flags flip‑prone decision steps in LLM agent traces, and shows how feeding the resulting consistency guidelines back into ALTK‑Evolve halves the gap between mean success and all‑run success (Pass⁵) on the AppWorld benchmark without hurting average accuracy.

    Hugging Facehuggingface.co8 minHN21
  2. The CARE score: Measuring your organization's AI readiness

    CloudBees’ CARE Score is a proprietary 0‑100 rubric across six AI‑governance dimensions (cost visibility, budget predictability, productivity measurement, governance maturity, pipeline visibility, token governance). The post shows a gap between leaders’ self‑rated confidence (≈86‑92%) and operational reality (e.g., only ~30% can attribute AI spend to outcomes, ~27% enforce token limits). It offer…

    Codeshipcloudbees.com8 min
  3. What four people at Hostinger actually do with AI all day (and what happens when you have an agentic beef)

    Hostinger staff use custom AI agents to automate daily tasks—from code reviews to influencer lead sourcing—shifting their work from doing the work to managing the agents. Building reliable “harnesses” (prompt contexts, constraints) consumes most of the engineering effort, and agents still hallucinate, repeat work, or suggest unsafe fixes, so human oversight remains essential.

    Hostingerhostinger.com8 min
  4. The Agent Said It Was Done. The Database Disagreed.

    ThinkingBox benchmarks AI agents by checking the final database state after tool calls, revealing that many LLM‑driven agents succeed on a single attempt but fail to repeat the correct outcome. Across 507 tasks run 20 times, models differ widely in consistency and cost per successful attempt, with Kimi‑K3 being broad but inconsistent and Claude Opus models being more reliable.

    Hugging Facehuggingface.co13 minHN1