Who Belongs in the Eval Set? A Capability-Taxonomy-Driven Pipeline for Curating Regression Eval Sets in Agent-Extensibility Platforms
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks
Abstract (arXiv)
Platform teams hosting agent-extensibility surfaces face a regression-economics paradox: every onboarding customer ships an evaluation set tuned to their domain, but the platform's regression set must live under a hard query-count ceiling bounded by release cadence. To our knowledge, no published industrial pipeline addresses this platform-side curation problem: existing evaluation frameworks are customer-side, and benchmark-compression work treats benchmarks as fixed pools rather than streams of incoming sets. We describe a capability-taxonomy-driven curation pipeline applied to declarative agents with custom actions in Microsoft 365 Copilot. It takes an agent specification and a customer's eval set as input, projects each query into a platform-owned capability taxonomy, and outputs per-query decisions (admit, drop, swap, or human review), under the philosophy that a healthy regression set is the minimal set of queries capturing the maximal spread of capability signatures -- distinct combinations of capabilities a query exercises together. Three components instantiate this: a classifier producing per-(query, capability) verdicts via a hybrid of deterministic specification-based extraction and large-language-model (LLM) semantic inference; an Invocation Quality (IQ) rater scoring how thoroughly a query exercises each capability, so a new query sharing a signature with an existing entry can still be recognized as a better test and displace it; and a consolidator comparing incoming queries against the regression set on coverage and quality through a rule-based decision cascade, backed by a conservative curator that only suggests evictions. The mechanism is taxonomy-agnostic and applies to any regression eval-set curation problem with a typed capability taxonomy, including taxonomies that evolve in response to the very evidence the pipeline surfaces.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 2 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Aug 2026.
Builds on
2 of 13 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 1
- 2024tinyBenchmarks: evaluating LLMs with fewer examplescited by 295
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026AlphaEval: Evaluating Agents in Production
- 2026PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation
- 2024Evaluation-Driven Development and Operations of LLM Agents: A Process Model and Reference Architecture
- 2026Beyond Static Leaderboards: Predictive Validity for the Evaluation of LLM Agents
- 2026Evaluating Skills, Not Just Agents: Agentic Continuous Evaluation of Skills
- 2026Diagnosing Tool-Selection Reasoning in LLM Agents with Canary Tools
- 2026Layer-Isolated Evaluation: Gating the Deterministic Scaffold of a Production LLM Agent with a No-LLM, Regression-Locked Test Harness
- 2026LiveMACE: Process-Aware Evaluation of LLM Agent Capabilities in Evolving Markets