arize-evaluator

Arize Evaluator Skill

SPACE — --space flags accept a space name (e.g., my-workspace) or a base64 space ID (e.g., U3BhY2U6...). Find yours with ax spaces list.

This skill covers designing, creating, and running evaluators on Arize — both LLM-as-judge (template) evaluators and code evaluators (deterministic, no LLM required). An evaluator defines the judge; a task is how you run it against real data.

Prerequisites

Proceed directly with the task — run the ax command you need. Do NOT check versions, env vars, or profiles upfront.

If an ax command fails, troubleshoot based on the error:

• command not found or version error → see references/ax-setup.md
• 401 Unauthorized / missing API key → run ax profiles show to inspect the current profile. If the profile is missing or the API key is wrong, follow references/ax-profiles.md to create/update it. If the user doesn't have their key, direct them to https://app.arize.com/admin > API Keys
• Space unknown → run ax spaces list to pick by name, or ask the user
• LLM provider call fails (missing provider credentials) → run ax ai-integrations list --space SPACE to check for platform-managed credentials. If none exist, use the arize-ai-provider-integration skill — never ask the user to paste a provider key into chat.
• Security: Never read .env files or search the filesystem for credentials. Use ax profiles for Arize credentials and ax ai-integrations for LLM provider keys. Never ask the user to paste secrets into chat. For missing credentials, see references/ax-profiles.md.
• CRITICAL — Never fabricate evaluation results: If an evaluation task fails, is cancelled, or produces no scores, report the failure clearly and explain what went wrong. Do NOT perform a "manual evaluation," invent quality scores, estimate percentages, or present any agent-generated analysis as if it came from the Arize evaluation system. Instead suggest: (1) fix the identified issue and retry, (2) try running from the Arize UI, (3) verify integration credentials with ax ai-integrations list, (4) contact support at https://arize.com/support

Concepts

What is an Evaluator?

An evaluator is an LLM-as-judge definition. It contains:

Evaluators are versioned — every prompt or model change creates a new immutable version. The most recent version is active.

Code evaluators are the deterministic alternative — no AI integration or model, just Python. They run as a class subclassing CodeEvaluator, not a bare function, and have their own strict import-path and evaluate()-signature contract. Getting either wrong makes a run cancel silently at 0/0/0. See "Custom Python code evaluators" in references/cli-reference.md before writing one.

What is a Task?

A task is how you run one or more evaluators against real data. Tasks are attached to a project (live traces/spans) or a dataset (experiment runs). A task contains:

Data Granularity

Set --data-granularity when creating the evaluator (ax evaluators create-template-evaluator / create-code-evaluator), not on the task — it controls what unit of data that evaluator scores whenever it runs against a project task (not dataset/experiment tasks — those evaluate experiment runs directly). It defaults to span.

How trace and session aggregation works

For trace granularity, spans sharing the same context.trace_id are grouped together. Column values used by the evaluator template are comma-joined into a single string (each value truncated to 100K characters) before being passed to the judge model.

For session granularity, the same trace-level grouping happens first, then traces are ordered by start_time and grouped by attributes.session.id. Session-level values are capped at 100K characters total.

The {{conversation}} template variable

At session granularity, {{conversation}} is a special template variable that renders as a JSON array of {input, output} turns across all traces in the session, built from attributes.input.value / attributes.llm.input_messages (input side) and attributes.output.value / attributes.llm.output_messages (output side).

At span or trace granularity, {{conversation}} is treated as a regular template variable and resolved via column mappings like any other.

Note: For {{conversation}} to work, spans must carry attributes.session.id. See the arize-instrumentation skill for how to emit session.id from application code, including the force_flush() pattern required for Jupyter notebooks and short-lived scripts.

Multi-evaluator tasks

A task can contain evaluators at different granularities. At runtime the system uses the highest granularity (session > trace > span) for data fetching and automatically splits into one child run per evaluator. Per-evaluator query_filter in the task's evaluators JSON further narrows which spans are included (e.g., only tool-call spans within a session).

Basic CRUD

Full command reference for AI integrations, evaluators (template and code), and tasks — every flag, with examples — is in references/cli-reference.md. The workflows below include the commands you need inline.

Workflow A: Create an evaluator for a project

Use this when the user says something like "create an evaluator for my Playground Traces project".

Step 1: Confirm the project name

ax spans export accepts a project name directly — no ID lookup needed. If you don't know the project name, list available projects:

ax projects list --space SPACE -o json

Find the entry whose "name" matches (case-insensitive) and use that name as PROJECT in subsequent commands. If you later hit a validation error with a name, fall back to using the project's "id" (a base64 string) instead.

Step 2: Understand what to evaluate

If the user specified the evaluator type (hallucination, correctness, relevance, etc.) → skip to Step 3.

If not, sample recent spans to base the evaluator on actual data:

ax spans export PROJECT --space SPACE -l 10 --days 30 --stdout

Inspect attributes.input, attributes.output, span kinds, and any existing annotations. Identify failure modes (e.g. hallucinated facts, off-topic answers, missing context) and propose 1–3 concrete evaluator ideas. Let the user pick.

Each suggestion must include: the evaluator name (bold), a one-sentence description of what it judges, and the binary label pair in parentheses. Format each like:

1. Name — Description of what is being judged. (label_a / label_b)

Example:

1. Response Correctness — Does the agent's response correctly address the user's financial query? (correct / incorrect)
2. Hallucination — Does the response fabricate facts not grounded in retrieved context? (factual / hallucinated)

Step 3: Confirm or create an AI integration

ax ai-integrations list --space SPACE -o json

If a suitable integration exists, note its ID. If not, create one using the arize-ai-provider-integration skill. Ask the user which provider/model they want for the judge.

Step 4: Create the evaluator

Use the template design best practices below. Keep the evaluator name and variables generic — the task (Step 6) handles project-specific wiring via column_mappings.

ax evaluators create-template-evaluator \
  --name "Hallucination" \
  --space SPACE \
  --template-name "hallucination" \
  --commit-message "Initial version" \
  --ai-integration-id INT_ID \
  --model-name "gpt-4o" \
  --include-explanations \
  --use-function-calling \
  --classification-choices '{"factual": 1, "hallucinated": 0}' \
  --template 'You are an evaluator. Given the user question and the model response, decide if the response is factual or contains unsupported claims.
 
User question: {{input}}
 
Model response: {{output}}
 
Respond with exactly one of these labels: hallucinated, factual'

Step 5: Ask — backfill, continuous, or both?

Recommended approach: Always start with a small backfill (~100 historical spans) to validate the evaluator before turning on continuous monitoring. This lets you catch column mapping errors, wrong span kinds, and template issues on known data before scoring all future production spans. Only enable continuous after a backfill confirms correct scoring.

Before creating the task, ask:

"Would you like to: (a) Run a backfill on historical spans (one-time)? (b) Set up continuous evaluation on new spans going forward? (c) Both — backfill first to validate, then keep scoring new spans automatically? (recommended)"

Step 6: Determine column mappings from real span data

Do not guess paths. Pull a sample and inspect what fields are actually present:

ax spans export PROJECT --space SPACE -l 5 --days 7 --stdout

For each template variable ({{input}}, {{output}}, {{context}}), find the matching JSON path. Common starting points — always verify on your actual data before using:

Validate span kind alignment: If the evaluator prompt assumes LLM final text but the task targets CHAIN spans (or vice versa), runs can cancel or score the wrong text. Make sure the query_filter on the task matches the span kind you mapped.

query_filter only works on indexed attributes: The query_filter in the evaluators JSON is evaluated against the eval index, not the raw span store. Attributes under attributes.metadata.* or custom keys may not be indexed and will silently match nothing. Use well-known indexed attributes like span_kind or attributes.llm.model_name for filtering. If a filter returns 0 spans despite data existing, try removing the filter as a diagnostic step.

Full example --evaluators JSON:

[
  {
    "evaluator_id": "EVAL_ID",
    "query_filter": "span_kind = 'LLM'",
    "column_mappings": {
      "input": "attributes.input.value",
      "output": "attributes.llm.output_messages.0.message.content",
      "context": "attributes.retrieval.documents.contents"
    }
  }
]

Include a mapping for every variable the template references. Omitting one causes runs to produce no valid scores.

Step 7: Create the task

Backfill only (a):

ax tasks create-evaluation \
  --name "Hallucination Backfill" \
  --task-type TEMPLATE_EVALUATION \
  --project PROJECT \
  --evaluators '[{"evaluator_id": "EVAL_ID", "column_mappings": {"input": "attributes.input.value", "output": "attributes.output.value"}}]' \
  --no-continuous

Continuous only (b):

ax tasks create-evaluation \
  --name "Hallucination Monitor" \
  --task-type TEMPLATE_EVALUATION \
  --project PROJECT \
  --evaluators '[{"evaluator_id": "EVAL_ID", "column_mappings": {"input": "attributes.input.value", "output": "attributes.output.value"}}]' \
  --is-continuous \
  --sampling-rate 0.1

Both (c): Use --is-continuous on create, then also trigger a backfill run in Step 8.

Step 8: Trigger a backfill run (if requested)

Eval index lag: The eval index is built asynchronously from the primary trace store and can lag 1–2 hours. For your first test run, use a time window ending at least 2 hours in the past. If you set --data-end-time to "now" on spans ingested in the last hour, the run will complete successfully but score 0 spans.

First find what time range has data:

ax spans export PROJECT --space SPACE -l 100 --days 1 --stdout   # try last 24h first
ax spans export PROJECT --space SPACE -l 100 --days 7 --stdout   # widen if empty

Use the start_time / end_time fields from real spans to set the window. For the first validation run, cap --max-spans at ~100 to get quick feedback:

ax tasks trigger-run TASK_ID \
  --data-start-time "2026-03-20T00:00:00" \
  --data-end-time "2026-03-21T23:59:59" \
  --max-spans 100 \
  --wait

Review scores and explanations before widening to the full backfill or enabling continuous.

Workflow B: Create an evaluator for an experiment

Use this when the user says something like "create an evaluator for my experiment" or "evaluate my dataset runs".

If the user says "dataset" but doesn't have an experiment: A task must target an experiment (not a bare dataset). Ask:

"Evaluation tasks run against experiment runs, not datasets directly. Would you like help creating an experiment on that dataset first?"

If yes, use the arize-experiment skill to create one, then return here.

Step 1: Find the dataset and experiment names

ax datasets list --space SPACE
ax experiments list --dataset DATASET_NAME --space SPACE -o json

Note the dataset name and the experiment name(s) to score. These accept names or IDs in subsequent commands — names are preferred.

Step 2: Understand what to evaluate

If the user specified the evaluator type → skip to Step 3.

If not, inspect a recent experiment run to base the evaluator on actual data:

ax experiments export EXPERIMENT_NAME --dataset DATASET_NAME --space SPACE --stdout | python3 -c "import sys,json; runs=json.load(sys.stdin); print(json.dumps(runs[0], indent=2))"

Look at the output, input, evaluations, and metadata fields. Identify gaps (metrics the user cares about but doesn't have yet) and propose 1–3 evaluator ideas. Each suggestion must include: the evaluator name (bold), a one-sentence description, and the binary label pair in parentheses — same format as Workflow A, Step 2.

Step 3: Confirm or create an AI integration

Same as Workflow A, Step 3.

Step 4: Create the evaluator

Same as Workflow A, Step 4. Keep variables generic.

Step 5: Determine column mappings from real run data

Run data shape differs from span data. Inspect:

ax experiments export EXPERIMENT_NAME --dataset DATASET_NAME --space SPACE --stdout | python3 -c "import sys,json; runs=json.load(sys.stdin); print(json.dumps(runs[0], indent=2))"

Common mapping for experiment runs:

• output → "output" (top-level field on each run)
• input → check if it's on the run or embedded in the linked dataset examples

If input is not on the run JSON, export dataset examples to find the path:

ax datasets export DATASET_NAME --space SPACE --stdout | python3 -c "import sys,json; ex=json.load(sys.stdin); print(json.dumps(ex[0], indent=2))"

Step 6: Create the task

--experiment-ids takes the base64 ID from ax experiments list --space SPACE -o json.

ax tasks create-evaluation \
  --name "Experiment Correctness" \
  --task-type TEMPLATE_EVALUATION \
  --dataset DATASET_NAME --space SPACE \
  --experiment-ids "EXP_ID" \
  --evaluators '[{"evaluator_id": "EVAL_ID", "column_mappings": {"output": "output"}}]' \
  --no-continuous

Step 7: Trigger and monitor

ax tasks trigger-run TASK_ID \
  --experiment-ids "EXP_ID" \
  --wait
 
ax tasks list-runs TASK_ID
ax tasks get-run RUN_ID

Best Practices for Template Design

1. Use generic, portable variable names

Use {{input}}, {{output}}, and {{context}} — not names tied to a specific project or span attribute (e.g. do not use {{attributes_input_value}}). The evaluator itself stays abstract; the task's column_mappings is where you wire it to the actual fields in a specific project or experiment. This lets the same evaluator run across multiple projects and experiments without modification.

2. Default to binary labels

Use exactly two clear string labels (e.g. hallucinated / factual, correct / incorrect, pass / fail). Binary labels are:

• Easiest for the judge model to produce consistently
• Most common in the industry
• Simplest to interpret in dashboards

If the user insists on more than two choices, that's fine — but recommend binary first and explain the tradeoff (more labels → more ambiguity → lower inter-rater reliability).

3. Be explicit about what the model must return

The template must tell the judge model to respond with only the label string — nothing else. The label strings in the prompt must exactly match the labels in --classification-choices (same spelling, same casing).

Good:

Respond with exactly one of these labels: hallucinated, factual

Bad (too open-ended):

Is this hallucinated? Answer yes or no.

4. Keep temperature low

Pass --invocation-params '{"temperature": 0}' for reproducible scoring. Higher temperatures introduce noise into evaluation results.

5. Use --include-explanations for debugging

During initial setup, always include explanations so you can verify the judge is reasoning correctly before trusting the labels at scale.

6. Pass the template in single quotes in bash

Single quotes prevent the shell from interpolating {{variable}} placeholders. Double quotes will cause issues:

# Correct
--template 'Judge this: {{input}} → {{output}}'
 
# Wrong — shell may interpret { } or fail
--template "Judge this: {{input}} → {{output}}"

7. Always set --classification-choices to match your template labels

The labels in --classification-choices must exactly match the labels referenced in --template (same spelling, same casing). Omitting --classification-choices causes task runs to fail with "missing rails and classification choices."

Troubleshooting

Diagnosing cancelled runs

When a task run reports status cancelled, work through the ordered checklist (credentials → model name → column-mapping/path checks → time window → span kind → variable resolution) in references/troubleshooting.md.

Related Skills

• arize-ai-provider-integration: Full CRUD for LLM provider integrations (create, update, delete credentials)
• arize-trace: Export spans to discover column paths and time ranges
• arize-experiment: Create experiments and export runs for experiment column mappings
• arize-dataset: Export dataset examples to find input fields when runs omit them
• arize-prompts: Manage prompt templates in the Prompt Hub; use with evaluators to score versioned prompts
• arize-link: Deep links to evaluators and tasks in the Arize UI

Save Credentials for Future Use

See references/ax-profiles.md § Save Credentials for Future Use.**