Output Quality Evaluator (LLM-as-Judge)
Evaluate the following output [output text] for [criteria such as accuracy, clarity, relevance], and provide a score and reasoning.
Evaluate the following output [output text] for [criteria such as accuracy, clarity, relevance], and provide a score and reasoning.
Check if the retrieved documents [retrieved data] fully answer the query [query]. Flag missing or irrelevant information.
For the question [query], provide an answer strictly based on the following verified sources: [sources].
Answer [query] and then explicitly explain the reasoning process and sources used.
Given Prompt A: [prompt A] and Prompt B: [prompt B], compare outputs and determine which better meets [criteria]. Explain why.
Using both keyword and semantic search results provided in [context], create a unified answer to [query].
Start with the provided query: [query]. Retrieve small chunks of relevant data first, then expand retrieval scope to larger context for detail enrichment.
Break down the query [complex query] into smaller sub-queries targeting different data sources.
Evaluate the prompt [prompt text] for clarity, specificity, and bias. Suggest improvements in structure and content.
Analyze why the following prompt [prompt text] did not produce the desired result. Suggest fixes.