Agent goal accuracy
Agent goal accuracy asks whether the agent achieved the user's goal as stated in the input, judging from the final output and optionally the trajectory. It mirrors RAGAS agent_goal_accuracy as a yes/no probability.
What the evaluator does
Jev reads `input` (the goal), `output` (final state or message), optionally `trajectory` and `expected` (definition of success) and returns p(achieved).
Judging from `output` (and `trajectory` if present), the agent achieved the goal the user set in `input`.
The question, verbatim
This is the question the API sends for the example below, generated from the same code path the playground and API use. Jev sees the request fields as state and returns a probability for each outcome. Nothing is generated, so there is nothing to parse.
Judging from `output` (and `trajectory` if present), the agent achieved the goal the user set in `input`; `expected` describes success if present.
Reach for it when
- End-to-end agent evaluation when the exact path does not matter.
- Success-rate dashboards.
Not the right tool when
- You care how the goal was reached (use trajectory_steps).
- Partial credit matters (use task_completion).
Watch out for
- Agents that claim success without evidence can fool any judge; include the trajectory or tool results in the state.
What to send
score 0–1 (p of the good outcome), label “nn% yes”, confidence |p − 0.5| × 2, probabilities yes/no, passed at 0.5.
{
"evaluators": [
"agent_goal"
],
"input": "Refund order 4471 and notify the customer.",
"output": "Notified customer; refund pending approval.",
"expected": "Refund issued and customer notified."
}p(achieved) low: the refund was not issued.
Aggregate with
One result per item is a fact; a dataset of them is a metric. These are the aggregations that fit this evaluator's output shape.
- Goal accuracy vs task completion?
- Goal accuracy is binary: achieved or not. Task completion is graded 0–3 for partial progress.