# Proposal: Foreman Probe
Submitted by: Edgar Chen, CEO, Crimson Leaf Holdings
Task ID: 89c5f085-8524-42c5-806a-431bfccf33e4
Status: AWAITING DAVID'S APPROVAL

---

## Executive Summary
### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Foreman Probe proposes to introduce a dedicated solution for benchmarking and evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities to address critical gaps in Crimson Leaf's current ability to assess, refine, and deploy AI-driven publishing tools effectively. The Generative AI market is projected to reach $1.1 trillion by 2032 [IDC Forecasts Worldwide Generative AI Market to Reach $1.1 Trillion by 2032](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51061923), with the LLM market expected to hit $40.8 billion by 2030 [LLM Market Size, Share, & Trends Analysis Report](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1367069/generative-ai-market-value-worldwide/). With 52% of organizations already experimenting with LLMs [The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier), the imperative for robust evaluation is clear. The Foreman Probe directly tackles the challenge of ensuring high-quality, reliable, and unbiased AI outputs, reducing the significant financial implications of poor software quality, estimated at $2.41 trillion in the US in 2022 [The Cost of Poor Software Quality in the US: A 2022 Report](https://www.it-cisq.org/fix-the-billion-dollar-app-downtime), and mitigating average per-bug costs ranging from $80 to $500 [Impact of AI in Software Testing: Benefits, Challenges & Future Outlook](https://www.infosys.com/services/validation-solutions/insights/impact-of-ai-in-software-testing.html). While competitors like Gryphon.ai and Galileo AI offer evaluation platforms, Foreman Probe distinguishes itself by focusing on agent-centric task creation and custom benchmark development tailored specifically for publishing workflows, providing domain-specific evaluation metrics and scalable infrastructure crucial for accurate assessments.

---

## Research Sources
## Research Synthesis

### Key Statistics
- **Generative AI Market Size**: Projected to reach $51.8 billion in 2023, and grow to $1.1 trillion by 2032. -- Source: [IDC](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51061923)
- **AI in Testing Market Growth**: Expected to grow at a CAGR of 32.7% from 2023 to 2030. -- Source: [Grand View Research](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ai-in-testing-market)
- **Top AI testing challenges**: Data management (48%), integration with existing tools (45%), and lack of skilled professionals (42%). -- Source: [TechTarget](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/AI-testing-key-benefits-challenges-and-tools)
- **Average cost per bug**: Can range from $80 to $500 depending on the project phase. -- Source: [Infosys](https://www.infosys.com/services/validation-solutions/insights/impact-of-ai-in-software-testing.html)
- **LLM market size**: Expected to reach $40.8 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 28.5%. -- Source: [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1367069/generative-ai-market-value-worldwide/)
- **LLM adoption in enterprises**: 52% of organizations are already experimenting with or implementing LLMs. -- Source: [McKinsey & Company](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier)
- **Cost of poor software quality**: Estimated at $2.41 trillion in the US in 2022. -- Source: [CISQ](https://www.it-cisq.org/fix-the-billion-dollar-app-downtime)

### Competitor Landscape
- **Gryphon.ai**: Offers an LLM evaluation platform with diverse evaluation metrics and a customizable framework. | Pricing not specified. | Potential weakness in transparent criteria or bias in metric weighting if not carefully designed. [Gryphon.ai - LLM Evaluation Platform](https://gryphon.ai/llm-evaluation-platform/)
- **Helicone**: Provides tools for monitoring LLM performance, including latency, cost, and token usage. | Free tier available, then usage-based pricing. | Primarily focused on operational metrics, may not deeply assess reasoning or task completion quality. [Helicone](https://www.helicone.ai/)
- **Galileo AI**: Offers an LLM evaluation suite for debugging and improving models. | Pricing not specified. | Detailed insights may require technical expertise to interpret fully. [Galileo AI - LLM Evaluation](https://galileo.ai/llm-evaluation/)
- **Weights & Biases**: Platform for tracking, visualizing, and standardizing ML experiments, including LLM fine-tuning. | Offers free individual plans, then tiered enterprise pricing. | More of a general ML lifecycle tool, LLM-specific evaluation might be less specialized than dedicated platforms. [Weights & Biases](https://wandb.ai/)
- **Humanloop**: Focuses on improving LLMs with human feedback, offering tools for data labeling and model fine-tuning. | Pricing not specified. | Relies heavily on human input, which can be costly and slow to scale for high-volume, diverse task evaluations. [Humanloop](https://www.humanloop.com/)
- **PromptLayer**: API wrapper for logging and tracking LLM requests, prompts, and responses. | Pricing not specified. | Primarily a logging and tracking tool, not a full-fledged evaluation platform. [PromptLayer](https://promptlayer.com/)

### Case Studies Found
- **Cognizant with Deloitte**: Improved software quality and reduced testing time by 20% using AI-driven testing. -- Source: [Cognizant](https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/insights/llm-testing-framework-best-practices)
- **Infosys with a large financial services company**: Reduced testing effort by 30% and time-to-market by 25% through AI-powered test automation. -- Source: [Infosys](https://www.infosys.com/services/validation-solutions/insights/impact-of-ai-in-software-testing.html)
- **A major e-commerce company**: Used Galileo AI to identify and fix critical issues in their LLM, improving response accuracy by 15%. -- Source: [Galileo AI Blog](https://galileo.ai/blog/improving-llm-accuracy/)

### Technology Findings
- **Key aspects for LLM evaluation**: Need for domain-specific metrics, human-in-the-loop assessments, and scalable infrastructure.
- **Evaluation methods**: Ranging from simple accuracy checks to complex behavioral and reasoning assessments.
- **Tools**: LLM-specific evaluation platforms (e.g., Gryphon.ai, Galileo AI), ML experiment tracking platforms (e.g., Weights & Biases), and API wrappers for logging (e.g., PromptLayer).
- **Core technologies**: Natural Language Processing (NLP), machine learning (ML), and large language models (LLMs) themselves for automated evaluation (e.g., using one LLM to evaluate another's output).
- **Benchmarking**: Standardized datasets (e.g., HELM, GLUE) and task-specific benchmarks are critical.
- **Regulatory considerations**: Data privacy, algorithmic bias, and transparency in AI development and deployment. The EU AI Act and NIST AI Risk Management Framework are key regulatory and guidance examples.

### Complete Source List
[1] [Generative AI Market Size & Share Report](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/generative-ai-market) -- Provided market size and growth projections for Generative AI.
[2] [IDC Forecasts Worldwide Generative AI Market to Reach $1.1 Trillion by 2032](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS51061923) -- Provided specific market size and growth figures for Generative AI.
[3] [AI in Testing Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report](https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/ai-in-testing-market) -- Contributed to AI in testing market growth CAGR.
[4] [LLM Testing Framework: Best Practices for Quality Assurance](https://www.cognizant.com/us/en/insights/llm-testing-framework-best-practices) -- Identified best practices for LLM testing and a case study.
[5] [LLM Evaluation Platform](https://gryphon.ai/llm-evaluation-platform/) -- Detailed features of Gryphon.ai's LLM evaluation platform.
[6] [Helicone: LLM Observability & Monitoring](https://www.helicone.ai/) -- Described Helicone's LLM monitoring tools.
[7] [Galileo AI: LLM Evaluation](https://galileo.ai/llm-evaluation/) -- Outlined Galileo AI's LLM evaluation suite and a case study.
[8] [Weights & Biases: LLMs in production](https://wandb.ai/) -- Information on Weights & Biases for ML experiments.
[9] [Humanloop: Improve your LLMs with human feedback](https://www.humanloop.com/) -- Described Humanloop's human-in-the-loop LLM improvement platform.
[10] [PromptLayer: The LLM Observability Platform for Developers](https://promptlayer.com/) -- Provided information on PromptLayer's API wrapper.
[11] [The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier) -- Contributed to LLM adoption rates in enterprises.
[12] [AI testing: Key benefits, challenges, and tools](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/AI-testing-key-benefits-challenges-and-tools) -- Identified top AI testing challenges.
[13] [LLM Market Size, Share, & Trends Analysis Report](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1367069/generative-ai-market-value-worldwide/) -- Provided LLM market size projections.
[14] [Impact of AI in Software Testing: Benefits, Challenges & Future Outlook](https://www.infosys.com/services/validation-solutions/insights/impact-of-ai-in-software-testing.html) -- Included insights on the cost per bug and a case study.
[15] [The Cost of Poor Software Quality in the US: A 2022 Report](https://www.it-cisq.org/fix-the-billion-dollar-app-downtime) -- Provided data on the cost of poor software quality.
[16] [The EU AI Act and its implications for AI development](https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/data-protected/the-eu-ai-act-and-its-implications-for-ai-development) -- Information on the EU AI Act.
[17] [NIST AI Risk Management Framework](https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence/ai-risk-management-framework) -- Description of NIST AI RMF.

---

## Cost Model and Financial Projections

Developing a robust Foreman Probe for benchmarking and evaluating LLM capabilities offers significant long-term value, offsetting initial setup and recurring operational costs. This section outlines the financial considerations.

### 1. Setup Costs

Initial setup costs for the Foreman Probe project are primarily focused on development and configuration:

*   **Gitea Repository Creation:** This is a one-time, internal administrative task with effectively zero direct API cost. It primarily involves internal labor.
*   **Template Development:** Estimated at 80-120 hours of senior developer time. Given the nuanced nature of creating effective LLM evaluation prompts and tasks, this involves significant intellectual effort to ensure comprehensiveness and applicability across various LLM capabilities.
*   **Agent Configuration:** Estimated at 40-60 hours of specialized AI engineer time. This includes integrating with target LLMs, setting up monitoring, and defining evaluation pipelines.

While exact figures depend on internal hourly rates, these are primarily labor costs for initial development rather than external vendor or infrastructure expenses.

### 2. Recurring Operational Costs

Post-setup, the Foreman Probe will incur recurring operational costs, predominantly driven by API usage and maintenance:

*   **Tasks per Week at Steady State:** We anticipate running 500-1,000 probe tasks per week. This volume is necessary to provide continuous, high-fidelity benchmarking data across various LLMs and task types. This figure is based on achieving comprehensive coverage for the rapidly evolving LLM landscape, given the LLM market is "expected to reach $40.8 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 28.5%" [Statista].
*   **Average Cost per Task:** Based on current LLM API pricing models, we estimate an average cost of **$0.05 - $0.15 per typical probe task**. This includes token usage for both the LLM being evaluated and, potentially, an evaluating LLM if used for automated scoring, along with any vector database lookups or auxiliary computations.
*   **Weekly API Cost Projection:** At the estimated range:
    *   Low End (500 tasks @ $0.05/task): $25
    *   High End (1,000 tasks @ $0.15/task): $150
*   **Monthly API Cost Projection:**
    *   Low End: $100 (4 weeks * $25)
    *   High End: $600 (4 weeks * $150)

These costs are manageable and represent a small fraction of the potential value derived from comprehensive LLM evaluation.

### 3. Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Foreman Probe's value proposition is rooted in mitigating significant risks and capitalizing on market opportunities.

*   **Cost of NOT having this company?**
    *   **Substantial R&D Waste:** Without rigorous evaluation, organizations risk investing heavily in LLMs that perform sub-optimally for specific use cases. This can lead to wasted development cycles and resources.
    *   **Increased "Cost of Poor Software Quality":** Poorly performing LLMs can lead to customer dissatisfaction, operational inefficiencies, and reputational damage. The "cost of poor software quality was estimated at $2.41 trillion in the US in 2022" [CISQ], with individual "average cost per bug ranging from $80 to $500" [Infosys]. While not all bugs are LLM-related, poor LLM performance directly contributes to this burden.
    *   **Missed Market Opportunities:** The "Generative AI market is projected to reach $51.8 billion in 2023, and grow to $1.1 trillion by 2032" [IDC]. Without effective evaluation, capitalizing on this rapidly expanding market becomes highly speculative.
    *   **Regulatory Non-compliance Risk:** As AI regulation (e.g., EU AI Act, NIST AI Risk Management Framework) matures, demonstrating LLM performance and reliability will become crucial for compliance and avoiding penalties.
*   **Projected Benefits:**
    *   **Enhanced LLM Performance:** By providing clear benchmarks, the Foreman Probe directly supports the selection and fine-tuning of LLMs, potentially leading to "improved response accuracy by 15%" as seen in case studies like Galileo AI with a major e-commerce company [Galileo AI Blog].
    *   **Reduced Development Cycles and Time-to-Market:** Efficiently identifying the best LLM for a task can "reduce testing effort by 30% and time-to-market by 25%" as demonstrated by Infosys [Infosys].
    *   **Competitive Advantage:** Organizations utilizing Foreman Probe can leverage superior LLM performance, differentiating themselves in a competitive landscape where "52% of organizations are already experimenting with or implementing LLMs" [McKinsey & Company].
    *   **Cost Savings from Bug Prevention:** Proactive evaluation reduces the incidence of production- (production-environment) issues, avoiding the high "average cost per bug" [Infosys].
*   **Break-even Point:** Given the relatively low recurring operational costs ($100-$600/month) and the significant potential savings/revenue generation (trillions in software quality cost, billions in market size), the Foreman Probe project is expected to break even quickly through realized efficiency gains and improved product quality. For internal consumption, the break-even is almost immediate upon preventing even a single critical LLM-related failure or accelerating a key development decision.
*   **Pricing Benchmarks:** While direct pricing for a comprehensive internal LLM benchmarking tool is not available, competitor analysis helps contextualize value:
    *   **Helicone:** Offers a free tier with usage-based pricing afterward, indicating the market accepts per-usage costs for monitoring. [Helicone](https://www.helicone.ai/)
    *   **Weights & Biases:** Provides free individual plans and tiered enterprise pricing for general ML experiment tracking, demonstrating a spectrum of costs for ML lifecycle tools. [Weights & Biases](https://wandb.ai/)
    *   Other competitors like Gryphon.ai, Galileo AI, Humanloop, and PromptLayer do not specify public pricing, suggesting enterprise-level negotiations or value-based pricing models that align with the high value of LLM reliability.

### 4. Budget Constraint Check

*   **Does this create a self-funding loop?** The Foreman Probe, as an internal tool, aims to create a *value-generation loop* rather than a direct self-funding revenue stream. By enhancing the quality and efficiency of LLM integration within our products and services, it directly contributes to:
    *   **Increased Customer Satisfaction:** Leading to higher retention and new sales.
    *   **Reduced Operational Costs:** Through fewer post-deployment issues and faster development.
    *   **Accelerated Innovation:** Enabling quicker adoption of cutting-edge LLM capabilities.

These benefits indirectly fund the project by improving the overall financial health and competitive standing of the company. The monthly operational costs are minimal compared to the strategic advantages gained in the "AI in Testing Market," which is "expected to grow at a CAGR of 32.7% from 2023 to 2030" [Grand View Research]. Thus, it is a critical investment for maintaining an edge in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

---

## Risk Analysis and Alternatives Considered
### RISK ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Foreman Probe project aims to create model probe tasks to benchmark and evaluate LLM capabilities. This section assesses the risks associated with undertaking this project, the risks of inaction, the competitive landscape, and alternative approaches considered.

#### 1. RISKS OF PROCEEDING

*   **Development Complexity & Scope Creep:**
    *   **Risk:** Designing, implementing, and maintaining a robust set of probe tasks that accurately and comprehensively evaluate diverse LLM capabilities is inherently complex. There's a risk of the project scope expanding beyond initial estimates, leading to delays and increased costs.
    *   **Rating: High**
*   **Rapid Obsolescence of LLM Landscape:**
    *   **Risk:** The field of LLMs is evolving at an unprecedented pace. Evaluation metrics, best practices, and even the types of capabilities being assessed can change rapidly. The probe tasks developed might become outdated quickly, requiring continuous updates and maintenance.
    *   **Rating: High**
*   **Subjectivity in Evaluation Criteria:**
    *   **Risk:** Defining objective and universally accepted evaluation criteria for LLM performance, especially for nuanced tasks (e.g., creativity, complex reasoning, ethical alignment), can be challenging. This might lead to debates over the validity or fairness of the benchmarks.
    *   **Rating: Medium**
*   **Integration with Existing Systems:**
    *   **Risk:** Ensuring seamless integration of the Foreman Probe tasks with various LLM APIs and existing evaluation frameworks (if any) could present technical challenges.
    *   **Rating: Medium**
*   **Resource Allocation Strain:**
    *   **Risk:** Developing and maintaining this project will require a dedicated team with significant expertise in LLMs, prompt engineering, and evaluation methodologies, potentially diverting resources from other critical initiatives.
    *   **Rating: Medium**
*   **Market Adoption & Acceptance:**
    *   **Risk:** Even with a high-quality product, there's a risk that industry players might prefer established evaluation frameworks or develop their in-house solutions, limiting the impact and adoption of Foreman Probe.
    *   **Rating: Medium**
*   **Data Management for Benchmarking**:
    * **Risk:** As highlighted by [TechTarget](https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/AI-testing-key-benefits-challenges-and-tools), data management is a top AI testing challenge (48%). Creating and managing the diverse and high-quality datasets necessary for effective probing will be crucial and challenging.
    * **Rating: High**

#### 2. RISKS OF NOT PROCEEDING

*   **Loss of Competitive Edge:**
    *   **Risk:** Competitors are actively developing and refining LLM evaluation tools (e.g., Gryphon.ai, Galileo AI, Helicone). Failing to engage in this space means missing an opportunity to establish a strong presence in a rapidly growing market, projected to reach $40.8 billion by 2030 ([Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1367069/generative-ai-market-value-worldwide/)).
    *   **Worsening: High - Missed Market Opportunity.**
*   **Inability to Internally Benchmark & Improve LLMs:**
    *   **Risk:** Without a standardized, internal framework for evaluating LLMs, our ability to select the best models for specific tasks, identify performance regressions, and drive targeted improvements will be severely hampered. This could lead to suboptimal LLM deployments and increased costs due to poor quality. The average cost per bug can range from $80 to $500 ([Infosys](https://www.infosys.com/services/validation-solutions/insights/impact-of-ai-in-software-testing.html)).
    *   **Worsening: High - Suboptimal Product Quality & Increased Costs.**
*   **Increased Development Costs for LLM Integrations:**
    *   **Risk:** Integrating LLMs without clear performance metrics forces developers to use trial-and-error, increasing development time and costs.
    *   **Worsening: Medium - Inefficient Development.**
*   **Lack of Internal Expertise & Understanding:**
    *   **Risk:** By not engaging with LLM evaluation, the organization risks falling behind on critical technical knowledge and best practices in a core AI domain.
    *   **Worsening: Medium - Deterioration of Internal AI Prowess.**
*   **Brand Perception as Lagging Innovator:**
    *   **Risk:** As 52% of organizations are already experimenting with or implementing LLMs ([McKinsey & Company](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-economic-potential-of-generative-ai-the-next-productivity-frontier)), not actively addressing LLM evaluation could position the company as hesitant or behind the curve in AI innovation.
    *   **Worsening: Medium - Reputation Damage.**

#### 3. COMPETITIVE RISK

The market for LLM evaluation and monitoring is already seeing significant activity, indicating both a viable market and strong competition.

*   **Existing Dedicated Evaluation Platforms:**
    *   **Risk:** Platforms like **Gryphon.ai** ("LLM Evaluation Platform") and **Galileo AI** ("LLM Evaluation") offer comprehensive evaluation suites with diverse metrics and debugging capabilities. These platforms are already established, and entering this space requires a strong differentiator or superior offering to compete effectively. Our project must offer distinct advantages, perhaps in ease of use, domain specificity for Foreman's tasks, or open-source contribution to gain traction.
    *   **Citation:** [Gryphon.ai - LLM Evaluation Platform](https://gryphon.ai/llm-evaluation-platform/), [Galileo AI - LLM Evaluation](https://galileo.ai/llm-evaluation/)
*   **Monitoring & Observability Tools:**
    *   **Risk:** **Helicone** ("LLM Observability & Monitoring") and **PromptLayer** ("The LLM Observability Platform for Developers") focus on operational metrics like latency, cost, and token usage, and logging. While our project focuses more on task completion quality, these tools capture crucial aspects of LLM performance. We risk fragmentation if our solution doesn't consider how to integrate or complement these aspects, or if users perceive the need for a single, comprehensive view.
    *   **Citation:** [Helicone](https://www.helicone.ai/), [PromptLayer](https://promptlayer.com/)
*   **General ML Experiment Management Platforms:**
    *   **Risk:** **Weights & Biases** ("LLMs in production") provides powerful tools for tracking, visualizing, and standardizing ML experiments, including LLM fine-tuning. While not exclusively LLM evaluation, it offers a robust framework that established ML teams might already use. Our solution needs to provide specialized, deep LLM insight that general platforms might lack to justify separate adoption.
    *   **Citation:** [Weights & Biases](https://wandb.ai/)
*   **Human-in-the-Loop Feedback Systems:**
    *   **Risk:** **Humanloop** ("Improve your LLMs with human feedback") emphasizes the critical role of human feedback in improving LLMs. While powerful, human feedback can be costly and slow to scale for diverse and high-volume evaluations. Our solution aims for more automated, yet intelligent, probing to complement and focus human efforts where most needed.
    *   **Citation:** [Humanloop](https://www.humanloop.com/)

#### 4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

*   **Relying on Public Benchmarks:**
    *   **Description:** Instead of developing our own probe tasks, we could extensively use existing public benchmarks (e.g., HELM, GLUE, MMLU) to evaluate LLMs.
    *   **Reason for Rejection:** While useful for general capabilities, public benchmarks often lack the domain-specificity and nuance required for evaluating LLMs in highly specialized publishing workflows. They may not accurately reflect real-world performance for Crimson Leaf's unique use cases, leading to potentially misleading conclusions.
*   **Outsourcing LLM Evaluation:**
    *   **Description:** Contract with external vendors or consulting firms specializing in LLM evaluation.
    *   **Reason for Rejection:** This approach introduces external dependencies, potential intellectual property concerns, and can be significantly more expensive in the long run. It also doesn't build internal expertise, which is crucial for staying competitive in the AI landscape.
*   **Adopting an Off-the-Shelf Evaluation Platform without Customization:**
    *   **Description:** Purchase or license an existing LLM evaluation platform (e.g., Gryphon.ai, Galileo AI) and use it as-is.
    *   **Reason for Rejection:** While these platforms offer robust capabilities, their generic nature might not fully cater to Crimson Leaf's specific needs for agent-centric task creation and custom benchmark development tailored for publishing. Significant customization would likely be required, blurring the line with developing our in-house solution and potentially incurring high vendor lock-in costs.
*   **Manual/Ad-hoc Evaluation:**
    *   **Description:** Continue with current practices of individual developers and teams performing informal, ad-hoc evaluations as needed.
    *   **Reason for Rejection:** This method is inconsistent, non-standardized, prone to bias, and extremely inefficient. It makes it nearly impossible to compare LLM performance across projects, track improvements, or identify regressions systematically. The "cost of poor software quality" would remain high and unchecked.

---

## Proposed Company Specification

### Company Record
*   **`company_id`**: foreman_probe
*   **`name`**: Foreman Probe
*   **`slug`**: foreman_probe
*   **`parent_company`**: crimson_leaf
*   **`mission`**: To empower effective LLM adoption and deployment by providing robust, agent-centric evaluation and benchmarking across specialized tasks.
*   **`tagline`**: Precision Probes for LLM Performance.
*   **`type`**: Research
*   **`status`**: active

### Proposed Agents

*   **Role Title**: Probe Architect
    *   **Name**: Aella
    *   **Personality**: Aella is a meticulous and innovative architect, passionate about designing clear, challenging, and insightful probe tasks. She thrives on understanding the nuances of LLM behavior and translating them into verifiable test cases, ensuring each probe is both rigorous and fair through a combination of creativity and analytical precision.
    *   **Responsibilities**: Designs new probe task types and instances, defines objective evaluation criteria for probes, maintains the integrity and relevance of the probe library, collaborates with LLM developers to identify new areas for evaluation.
    *   **Model Recommendation**: GPT-4-turbo (for complex logical reasoning, nuanced understanding, and creative problem-solving in task design that requires high-level cognitive abilities)
    *   **Supported Templates**: `design_probe_task`, `refine_probe_criteria`, `generate_test_data`

*   **Role Title**: Evaluation Analyst
    *   **Name**: Kaelen
    *   **Personality**: Kaelen is a detail-oriented and analytical agent, focused on the precise execution and unbiased analysis of LLM evaluations. He is an expert in data interpretation, statistical analysis, and reporting, ensuring that evaluation results are accurate, transparent, and actionable for stakeholders.
    *   **Responsibilities**: Executes probe tasks against LLMs, collects and analyzes evaluation data, generates performance reports, identifies common failure modes and emerging capabilities, assists in refining probe tasks based on results and LLM feedback.
    *   **Model Recommendation**: Claude-3-Haiku (for efficient data processing, clear reporting, and handling large volumes of evaluation results, with strong summarization capabilities)
    *   **Supported Templates**: `run_llm_evaluation`, `analyze_evaluation_results`, `generate_performance_report`

*   **Role Title**: Data Steward
    *   **Name**: Orin
    *   **Personality**: Orin is the steadfast guardian of the probe task repository and evaluation datasets. She is meticulous about data integrity, version control, and accessibility, ensuring that all probes and their results are properly categorized, stored, and retrievable for future analysis and historical tracking.
    *   **Responsibilities**: Manages the central database of probe tasks and evaluation results, ensures data quality and consistency, implements version control for probe definitions and datasets, manages data access for other agents and teams, monitors storage and retrieval systems for optimal performance.
    *   **Model Recommendation**: GPT-3.5-turbo (for efficient and reliable data management, cataloging tasks, and responding to structured data queries)
    *   **Supported Templates**: `catalog_probe_task`, `store_evaluation_data`, `retrieve_probe_history`, `audit_data_integrity`

### Proposed Templates (MVP set)

*   **Name**: `design_probe_task`
    *   **Purpose**: To create a new, well-defined probe task for LLM evaluation, including the task objective, detailed description, expected output format, precise success criteria, and illustrative examples.
    *   **Key Steps**:
        1.  Receive a high-level concept or specific LLM capability to test (e.g., summarization, code generation, creative writing).
        2.  Generate diverse task instances and variations that stress-test the LLM across different parameters.
        3.  Define clear, objective success metrics and scoring rubrics that are measurable and repeatable.
        4.  Provide example prompts, ideal or reference responses, and rationales for scoring.
    *   **Trigger**: Manual request from `Probe Architect`, or identified gap in LLM evaluation coverage or a new LLM feature.
    *   **Estimated Cost per Run**: $0.50 - $2.00 (depends on complexity and number of iterations for refinement, potential use of LLMs for creative task generation)

*   **Name**: `run_llm_evaluation`
    *   **Purpose**: To execute a specified set of probe tasks against a target LLM and record its responses systemically, ensuring consistency and reproducibility.
    *   **Key Steps**:
        1.  Retrieve specified probe tasks and their parameters from the central repository.
        2.  Format prompts appropriately for the target LLM API, handling different API specifications.
        3.  Send prompts to the LLM and capture its outputs (text, structured data, etc.) along with metadata (latency, token usage).
        4.  Store raw LLM outputs and associated metadata for subsequent analysis.
    *   **Trigger**: Scheduled evaluation, ad-hoc request from `Evaluation Analyst` or a developer for a specific model, or triggered by a new model release/fine-tune.
    *   **Estimated Cost per Run**: $0.10 - $0.50 (depends on number of probes, LLM interaction costs which vary by model, and data volume generated)

*   **Name**: `analyze_evaluation_results`
    *   **Purpose**: To process raw LLM responses obtained from evaluation runs against predefined probe criteria, calculate structured evaluation scores, and extract qualitative findings.
    *   **Key Steps**:
        1.  Receive raw LLM responses and their associated probe task criteria and expected outputs.
        2.  Apply defined scoring rubrics (e.g., ROUGE for summarization, exact match for facts, LLM-as-a-judge for subjective tasks) to each response.
        3.  Identify and categorize patterns in successes and failures (e.g., specific error types, reasoning gaps, stylistic issues, hallucination).
        4.  Summarize quantitative and qualitative findings, including confidence scores where applicable, for reporting.
    *   **Trigger**: Completion of `run_llm_evaluation` or specific request from `Evaluation Analyst` to delve into a particular evaluation dataset.
    *   **Estimated Cost per Run**: $0.20 - $1.00 (depends on complexity of analysis, potentially using an evaluation LLM, and prompt/response length)

*   **Name**: `generate_performance_report`
    *   **Purpose**: To compile and present evaluation data, scores, trends, and qualitative insights into a coherent, actionable report suitable for various stakeholders within Crimson Leaf.
    *   **Key Steps**:
        1.  Aggregate scores, qualitative observations, and relevant metadata from `analyze_evaluation_results`.
        2.  Create clear and informative visualizations (charts, graphs, tables) of performance metrics over time or across different LLMs.
        3.  Summarize key insights, identify areas of strength and weakness for specific LLMs or tasks, and provide recommendations for improvement or further investigation.
        4.  Format the report for target recipients (e.g., executive summary for leadership, detailed technical analysis for developers).
    *   **Trigger**: Ad-hoc request from `Evaluation Analyst`, scheduled weekly/monthly review, or completion of a major LLM benchmark campaign.
    *   **Estimated Cost per Run**: $0.30 - $1.50 (depends on the depth of analysis required for the report, graphics generation, and target audience needs)

### Schedule

**Phase 1: Foundation & MVP (Weeks 1-4)**
*   **Week 1**: Gitea repository setup, initial agent configuration for Aella (Probe Architect), and preliminary template definitions (`design_probe_task` v0.1).
*   **Week 2**: Development of first 5 core `design_probe_task` templates specific to Crimson Leaf's publishing workflows (e.g., abstract generation, headline optimization, style guide adherence).
*   **Week 3**: Initial agent configuration for Kaelen (Evaluation Analyst) and `run_llm_evaluation` template. Integrate with 1-2 primary LLM APIs.
*   **Week 4**: Development of `analyze_evaluation_results` (MVP with basic scoring) and `generate_performance_report` (MVP with key metrics). First end-to-end evaluation cycle with internal LLM.

**Phase 2: Expansion & Refinement (Weeks 5-8)**
*   **Week 5**: Agent configuration for Orin (Data Steward) and `catalog_probe_task`, `store_evaluation_data` templates. Implement version control for probes.
*   **Week 6**: Expand probe task library (additional 10 tasks). Refine scoring rubrics in `analyze_evaluation_results` based on initial feedback.
*   **Week 7**: Integrate with 2-3 additional LLM APIs. Develop `refine_probe_criteria` template for iterative improvement of probes.
*   **Week 8**: Conduct comprehensive benchmark run across multiple internal LLMs. Generate detailed performance report with trend analysis.

**Phase 3: Automation & Advanced Capabilities (Weeks 9-12)**
*   **Week 9**: Implement automated scheduling for routine `run_llm_evaluation` tasks. Enhance `generate_performance_report` with advanced visualizations and comparative analytics.
*   **Week 10**: Develop `generate_test_data` template to automate dataset creation for probes. Explore LLM-as-a-judge capabilities for subjective evaluations.
*   **Week 11**: Integrate with internal reporting dashboards. Develop a feedback mechanism for developers to submit new probe requests.
*   **Week 12**: Final review and documentation of MVP system. Plan for continuous improvement and feature roadmap.

### 90-Day Success Criteria

Within 90 days, the Foreman Probe system will achieve the following:

1.  **Established Core Evaluation Framework**: A functional, agent-driven system capable of designing, running, analyzing, and reporting on at least 15 distinct LLM probe tasks.
2.  **Coverage of Key Publishing Workflows**: At least 5 critical LLM-driven publishing functionalities (e.g., content summarization, headline generation, copy editing, translation, ideation) will have dedicated, robust probe tasks with objective evaluation criteria.
3.  **Regular Benchmarking of Internal LLMs**: Successfully conducted weekly automated evaluation runs across a minimum of 3 internal LLM deployments, generating consistent performance data.
4.  **Actionable Performance Insights**: Regular, automated performance reports will be generated, highlighting LLM strengths, weaknesses, and regressions, leading to at least 2 instances where findings directly inform LLM selection or fine-tuning decisions.
5.  **Data Integrity & Accessibility**: All probe definitions, raw LLM outputs, and processed evaluation results will be version-controlled and centrally stored, ensuring retrievability and historical tracking.
6.  **Developer Engagement**: Achieve initial adoption and positive feedback from at least one internal development team, demonstrating the utility of Foreman Probe in their LLM development lifecycle.

### Dependencies

*   **Access to LLM APIs**: Stable and documented API access to all internal and relevant external Large Language Models targeted for evaluation.
*   **Gitea Access**: Full administrative access to Crimson Leaf's Gitea instance for repository creation and management.
*   **Technical Expertise**: Availability of engineering talent proficient in Python, prompt engineering, LLM APIs, data analysis, and potentially machine learning operations (MLOps) for ongoing development and maintenance.
*   **Computational Resources**: Access to sufficient CPU/GPU resources for running LLM inference during evaluation, if not entirely reliant on external APIs (e.g., for local LLM deployment).
*   **Central Data Storage**: Secure and scalable data storage solutions for housing probe tasks, evaluation results, and LLM outputs (e.g., a NoSQL database, object storage).
*   **Stakeholder Buy-in**: Active collaboration and support from LLM development teams, product managers, and leadership to prioritize and integrate evaluation insights into the development process.
*   **Clear Evaluation Standards**: Initial guidelines and consensus on what constitutes "good" LLM performance for Crimson Leaf's specific use cases to inform probe design.

---

##