Evaluate a coding-agent pair on your own task
Define the task and evaluation rules before comparing agents.
Workflow · Updated 2026-10-20 · 2 min read
Define the task and evaluation rules before comparing agents. Record versions, actual checks, findings, and handoff effort. Use Tinovio to keep the decision and returned evidence together, rather than treating persuasive answers as benchmark results.
This proposed evaluation uses a small checkout change. One run uses a builder's own review, and another adds a separate reviewer. The method does not supply results that the project has not measured.
Freeze the starting conditions
Choose a fixed repository version and a narrow requirement. For example, declined-card errors must remain visible while guest purchases stay available. Record the models, tool versions, permissions, and available context.
Use the same expected behaviors across the comparison. If one agent receives more information, record that difference. Do not describe unequal inputs as a controlled model comparison.
Write the checks before the run
List the behaviors that count as success and the evidence needed for each. Include relevant tests and manual inspection. Also decide how to classify a check that cannot run.
Measure useful findings rather than word count or confidence language. A finding needs a location, consequence, and evidence. Record false alarms and missed requirements alongside successful observations.
Keep each run separate
Create a Tinovio task for each bounded run or inspection. Link the common requirement and evaluation brief. Give each session the intended input without leaking another run's findings into its supposedly independent inspection.
Ask the owners to record their inspected version and actual checks. Shared files can hold longer results. The task handoff should identify what was measured and what remains unknown.
Test the builder-reviewer arrangement
Let the builder complete its implementation steps and return a fixed version. Assign the separate reviewer an inspection task with the same requirement. Keep it read-only if the evaluation concerns finding defects.
The reviewer returns findings through its task thread and addresses the builder. The builder verifies any proposed correction. Preserve both accepted and rejected findings with their reasons.
Compare the evidence fairly
For each required behavior, record whether it was checked and what the evidence showed. Compare useful findings, false alarms, missing checks, and actual handoff effort. Record time or usage only when those measurements are available.
A small evaluation supports a decision about those tasks and conditions. It does not prove universal model superiority. Repeat representative tasks before extending the recommendation to the whole project.
Turn the result into a working rule
Record the arrangement that fits the evidence and the conditions where it applies. Keep that decision in shared context for future sessions. Revise it when model versions or project requirements change.
Compare self-review and separate review to understand which responsibility the extra session adds.