arXiv:2608.09939v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Production teams deploying LLM chat agents face a specific quality assurance gap: existing evaluation tools test individual responses or simulate social interactions, but none systematically verify whether real users can achieve their goals through multi-turn conversation. We introduce a three-layer dogfooding framework that bridges this gap by combining canonical question-bank testing (Layer 1), random-walk multi-turn evaluation (Layer 2), and a goal-directed NPC (Non-Player Character) simulator with five structured goal types and a ten-category failure taxonomy (Layer 3). In a longitudinal case study on a production multi-agent system over roughly three months (257 evaluation runs; a 108-scenario NPC suite), we find that the three layers produce complementary regression signals: cross-layer correlation for response quality is weak within a synchronized run (Spearman rho between -0.15 and 0.14) and negative across the longitudinal series (rho down to -0.46), confirming that canonical correctness does not predict goal-directed conversation success. The NPC simulator achieves 77 percent goal achievement at 0.17 dollars per run (6,272x cheaper than human evaluation), enabling daily CI/CD integration with automated PROMOTE/HOLD/ROLLBACK release decisions. We release full prompt templates, the failure taxonomy, and a Python-first replicability guide so that other teams can adopt the framework for their own LLM chat agents.
Abstract: Production teams deploying LLM chat agents face a specific quality assurance gap: existing evaluation tools test individual responses or simulate social interactions, but none systematically verify whether real users can achieve their goals through multi-turn conversation. We introduce a three-layer dogfooding framework that bridges this gap by combining canonical question-bank testing (Layer 1), random-walk multi-turn evaluation (Layer 2), and a goal-directed NPC (Non-Player Character) simulator with five structured goal types and a ten-category failure taxonomy (Layer 3). In a longitudinal case study on a production multi-agent system over roughly three months (257 evaluation runs; a 108-scenario NPC suite), we find that the three layers produce complementary regression signals: cross-layer correlation for response quality is weak within a synchronized run (Spearman rho between -0.15 and 0.14) and negative across the longitudinal series (rho down to -0.46), confirming that canonical correctness does not predict goal-directed conversation success. The NPC simulator achieves 77 percent goal achievement at 0.17 dollars per run (6,272x cheaper than human evaluation), enabling daily CI/CD integration with automated PROMOTE/HOLD/ROLLBACK release decisions. We release full prompt templates, the failure taxonomy, and a Python-first replicability guide so that other teams can adopt the framework for their own LLM chat agents.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: