Beyond Pass/Fail: Why We Added Structured Rubrics to Evaluate Multi-Agent Systems
Binary pass/fail tests don't capture what matters in multi-agent systems. We've added Rubric as a first-class primitive—structured, weighted dimensions that score nuanced behaviors.
The problem with binary testing
Pass/fail tests worked fine for traditional software. For multi-agent systems? They're completely inadequate.
When you ask an AI agent to handle a customer support ticket, "correct" isn't binary. You need to evaluate multiple dimensions: Did it route to the right category? Was the response empathetic or robotic? Did it hallucinate information? Was it actionable?
Each dimension matters. Each has different weight. A perfect routing with a robotic tone might be worse than a near-miss routing with genuinely helpful language.
Rubrics as a first-class primitive
That's why we just shipped Rubrics as a first-class primitive in Versalist.
Not another JSON blob buried in challenge metadata. A structured evaluation system designed for nuance.
- Binary AND ordinal scoring — Some dimensions are yes/no (did it hallucinate?). Others need scales (how empathetic was the response, from 0-3?).
- Weighted criteria — Routing accuracy might be worth 1 point. Reply quality might be worth 3. You define what matters most.
- Scale definitions — Clear rubrics like "0 = unclear and unhelpful, 3 = empathetic and actionable" remove subjectivity from evaluation.
- Gold Items — Ground-truth test cases with expected outputs. The reference standard for automated scoring.
Why this matters now
The next wave of AI isn't chatbots answering questions. It's multi-agent systems making real decisions: triaging support tickets, processing documents, orchestrating workflows, handling edge cases autonomously.
If you can't measure nuance, you can't improve it. And if you can't improve it, you're shipping agents that fail in ways you'll never detect until users complain.
Binary tests give you false confidence. Structured rubrics give you actual insight.
Foundation for LLM-as-Judge
This is our foundation for automated LLM-as-Judge scoring at scale.
With structured rubrics and gold items, you can have an LLM evaluate outputs against defined criteria—not vibes, not "does this seem good," but specific dimensions with specific weights and specific scale definitions.
The evaluator knows exactly what to look for. The scores are comparable across runs. The feedback is actionable.
Moving past binary
Binary tests don't capture agent quality. The challenges worth solving don't have single right answers—they have better and worse approaches across multiple dimensions.
Rubrics let us define what "better" means. Gold items let us verify it. LLM-as-Judge lets us scale it.
If you're building multi-agent systems and still relying on pass/fail tests, your evaluation isn't keeping up with your agents.
Join the pursuit
Build challenges that matter
Work with us to design challenges that prioritize robustness, equity, and discovery. Together we can move the field beyond leaderboards and toward meaningful impact.