Argmin AI
Test AI agent workflows without ML expertise
65 followers
Test AI agent workflows without ML expertise
65 followers
For teams and founders shipping agentic AI workflows and features. Generic metrics don't speak your product's language, so a new prompt, model, or RAG change can pass them and still ship real issues. A quick manual check catches even less. You don't need annotated data, an ML team, or a month to be safe from regression. Drop in your agent's task, business rules, docs, and examples, and Argmin AI builds an evaluation you run before every change.
Interactive
Free
Launch Team
Render: Get up to $100K in startup creditsThe fastest way to launch and scale your startup in the cloud
Promoted
the fact that it generates evals from just a task description and a few examples is genuinely impressive. most eval tools assume you already have a labeled dataset sitting around, so skipping that whole step is a real unlock for smaller teams shipping fast.
@esma144191 Thanks Esma. The labeled-dataset assumption always felt backwards to me: the feature you most need to eval is the new one, which is exactly the one you have no labels for yet. Starting from the task description plus a couple of examples gets you a first eval on day one, then you tighten it as real cases come in. Anything you're shipping right now where that would've saved you?
the way it builds evals from your own task description and docs instead of forcing you to hand-label data is a really thoughtful move for shipping agent features fast.
@adnancwzc Thanks Adnan. That was the whole bet: hand-labeling is where most teams stall out and quietly give up on evals, so if we can bootstrap from what you already wrote (the task description, the docs), you get to a real eval before you ship instead of three sprints later. What are you building agents for?
You don't know what you don't know. If you're building agentic AI workflows and don't have a robust eval system, you're flying blind. This is a really cool solution.
@david_arakelian Flying blind is the right phrase, David. The scary part isn't the failures you catch in the demo, it's the confident-wrong outputs that look fine and ship anyway. That's the whole reason to have an eval you trust before you're in prod, not after. Appreciate you saying so, especially from someone living in LLMOps day to day.
love how you cut straight to the eval problem instead of padding with generic AI agent dashboards. the "drop in your docs and get evals" angle feels like exactly what shipping teams have been cobbling together with brittle scripts for too long.
@nazls86733 You nailed why we built it, Nazlı. The brittle-scripts phase is real: everyone reinvents a fragile grader, it slowly drifts from what their experts would actually say, and then nobody trusts the number. We'd rather own that one hard part, a judge that agrees with your domain experts, than ship another dashboard. What were you stitching together before?