juried 0.3.0

Acceptance testing for LLM features, with verdicts corrected for the judge's own error rate.

juried treats your LLM powered feature as a black box behind an HTTP endpoint. You write acceptance criteria in plain English, juried generates test scenarios from them, runs each scenario repeatedly, has a pinned LLM judge mark every response, and reports pass rates with confidence intervals. Scenarios are ordinary pytest tests, so -k, -x, markers and --junitxml all work and the results fit an existing CI job. The repeated runs are of the feature, not of the verdict: by default each response gets one verdict from one model, and juried calibrate tells you how far to trust that model. It is built for QA teams, who own the acceptance criteria and the labels the judge is checked against.

Why juried

Every eval tool that uses an LLM judge reports the judge's verdict as the result. juried treats the verdict as a measurement with an error rate: you label a set of responses, juried calibrate measures the judge's false-pass and false-fail rates against them, and the reported pass rate is corrected for both. "Passed 18 of 20" becomes 84% with a 72–93% interval, and the gate can run on that figure.

The rest follows from taking the judge seriously as an instrument. Each scenario is sampled repeatedly, because one run of a stochastic feature is an anecdote. Scenarios are pytest items, so -k, -x, --junitxml and your existing CI job work unchanged. It tests the HTTP endpoint you ship, not a function in process.

juried is a gate. If you want RAG metrics, tracing or a hosted dashboard, use Ragas, Braintrust or LangSmith alongside it.

Install

pip install juried            # add juried[schema] for json_schema checks

Python 3.11 or later. Judges read ANTHROPIC_API_KEY or OPENAI_API_KEY from the environment, or the variable api_key_env names. juried never reads a secret from disk and does not load .env itself.

Five minutes with the stub

The repository's examples/faq-bot is a fake FAQ bot and a project set up against it, so from a clone you can see a whole run without an API key:

cd examples/faq-bot
python server.py &                # a deterministic fake bot on port 8765
juried generate                   # scenarios from acceptance.md, via the stub provider
juried calibrate                  # the stub judge against 38 labelled responses
juried run                        # 16 scenarios, 10 attempts each; one fails on purpose
open reports/juried-report.html   # then kill %1

The calibrate step is the one to read first. The stub judge agrees with 28 of the 38 labels and passes all ten it should fail, which is the point of calibrating before you trust any judge. The first 32 of those cases were checked against claude-haiku-4-5 too, and it agreed with every label; the report is at examples/faq-bot/reports/juried-calibration.json. The longer walkthrough, with the compare step and what the stub judge is, is in docs/runs.md.

The commands

juried init                      # writes juried.toml, acceptance.md and calibration/example.yaml
juried generate                  # turns each criterion into scenarios/generated/<criterion>.yaml
juried generate --adversarial    # scenarios that try to make the feature violate each criterion
juried calibrate                 # judges responses your team labelled; how far to trust the judge
juried run                       # runs every scenario N times under pytest and writes the report
juried label                     # labels the responses the run queued, growing the calibration set
juried compare old.json new.json # flags scenarios that got worse between two reports
juried estimate                  # what a run would send and cost, without sending anything

juried run accepts pytest arguments after its own, for example juried run --runs 50 -k refund -x --junitxml=out.xml. Generation is a one off step: review and edit the generated YAML, commit it, and run never touches it. calibrate is covered under "Trusting the judge" and compare under "Comparing runs".

Configuration

juried.toml lives at the repo root. Any key can be overridden with an environment variable named JURIED_<SECTION>_<KEY>, such as JURIED_RUN_RUNS=20. .env.example lists every variable juried reads, including the provider keys and the overrides; copy it to .env and export it from your shell, since juried does not load it itself.

[target]
url = "https://staging.example.com/api/chat"
headers = { Authorization = "Bearer ${STAGING_TOKEN}" }
body = { message = "{{message}}", history = "{{history}}" }
response_path = "choices.0.message.content"

[run]
runs = 20          # attempts per scenario
misses = 1         # failed attempts a scenario may have and still pass
concurrency = 4    # requests in flight to the target, across all scenarios

[judge]
provider = "anthropic"    # anthropic, openai or stub
model = "claude-sonnet-5" # pinned and recorded with every verdict

The full reference (usage and pricing keys, streaming, base_url, api_key_env and [generate]) is in docs/configuration.md; criteria, the scenario YAML, checks, conversations and adversarial scenarios in docs/scenarios.md.

How a scenario passes

Each scenario runs runs times. The judge marks each response pass or fail with a one line reason, using a fixed prompt and the configured temperature, if any. The scenario passes when no more than misses of those attempts fail, so with the defaults, runs = 20 and misses = 1, it needs 19 passes out of 20. Set misses = 0 to require every attempt to pass, or raise runs and misses together to tolerate the same miss rate on more evidence. A scenario stops as soon as its gate is decided, so a bad deploy fails after misses + 1 attempts rather than all of them; --no-early-stop runs every attempt.

[run]
runs = 50
misses = 3    # gate needs 47/50 passes

juried prints what the gate needs at the top of every run (juried: gate needs 19/20 passes (1 miss tolerated)), repeats it in every gate failure and shows it in the report. threshold, the gate setting before 0.3, still works for this release: juried derives misses from it and prints a notice naming the value to set instead. Failing gates, errors, concurrency and caching are in docs/runs.md; what a run costs and the dry run in docs/costs.md.

What the judge's mistakes cost you

A judge that passes 6% of bad responses and fails 3% of good ones does not just add noise; it moves the number. juried measures both rates with juried calibrate and, when a calibration report for the configured judge exists under reports/, corrects every scenario's pass rate for them:

corrected = (observed + specificity − 1) / (sensitivity + specificity − 1)

This is the Rogan–Gladen estimator, used in epidemiology to correct a test's observed prevalence for the test's sensitivity and specificity. The arithmetic can land outside 0 to 1, and juried clamps it to that range: a scenario the judge passed every time is reported as 100% whatever the judge's rates, and one it passed less often than its false pass rate as 0%. When sensitivity plus specificity minus one is below 0.5 juried refuses to correct at all and reports the judge as too weak, with the calibration accuracy in place of a figure. With few labelled cases the corrected interval is wider than the observed one, not narrower, because it carries the uncertainty in the judge's error rates as well as in the run. That is intended; more labels tighten it.

Each scenario then reports:

18/20 judged pass; corrected 84% (72–93%), judge false pass 6%, false fail 3%

In 0.3 the corrected rate is reported and the gate still runs on the observed passes, unless you set gate_on = "corrected" under [run], which becomes the default in the release after. How the rates are taken per criterion, the bootstrap behind the interval, and gate_on are in docs/judge.md.

Trusting the judge

An LLM judge is a model like any other, and juried does not pretend otherwise. What it gives you:

• One verdict per response by default. Each response is judged once by the configured model, and every verdict is stored with its reason, model, prompt version and timestamp.
• Votes, when you want agreement measured. votes = 3 under [judge] judges each response that many times and reports how often the votes split, which measures the judge's stability, not its correctness.
• Calibration against human labels. juried calibrate judges responses your team has labelled and reports the accuracy and the false pass and false fail rates, and juried label grows that set from real runs.

The full account, with the calibration YAML shape and the label queue, is in docs/judge.md.

Comparing runs

One run tells you where the feature stands; two tell you which way it is moving. Keep the JSON report from a known good run (a release, or last night's main) and compare the next one against it:

juried compare reports/baseline.json reports/juried-report.json --json reports/compare.json

The test behind it, --alpha, --min-effect and the detectable drop note are in docs/compare.md.

The report

After a run juried writes reports/juried-report.html and reports/juried-report.json. The HTML is a single self contained file with no scripts. It opens with one row of totals, states the gate rule once above the first table, then lists each acceptance criterion with its description, a table of its scenarios showing passes over judged attempts, the passes the gate needs and the misses tolerated, pass rate, interval, response latency (with the time to first token for a streaming target) and gate result, and beneath the table each scenario's message, expectation and every failing run with the response and the judge's reason. Criteria with no scenarios are called out so coverage gaps are visible. The JSON file holds the same structure plus every attempt, for anyone who wants to chart trends.

The screenshot predates 0.3: it shows the threshold and lower bound columns that the passes-needed column has since replaced. Reading the interval, and the rest of what it shows, are in docs/runs.md.

Roadmap

Not there yet, and shaped so they can be added without changing the scenario format:

• A Target that drives a UI rather than an HTTP endpoint.
• Further Provider implementations for other judges.

Out of scope, because juried is a gate and not a platform: RAG metrics such as faithfulness and context recall (Ragas), graded rubric scores (DeepEval), and tracing, observability and hosted dashboards (Braintrust, LangSmith).

Development

make check      # ruff, mypy and pytest

The same target runs in CI on every pull request. The Live provider contract badge at the top of this file shows the latest result of the live workflow, which runs weekly and on demand and exercises both the Anthropic and OpenAI clients with one judge call and one generate call each, and sends one judge call to a local Ollama through the OpenAI client when the runner has one, skipping with a notice when it does not. Every run uploads the pytest output as an artifact, so a green run can be checked to have tested both providers rather than skipped them; in this repository a skipped provider fails the run. See CONTRIBUTING.md for how to run it locally, and for the development install. Changes are recorded in CHANGELOG.md and the release steps in docs/releasing.md. The interfaces kept stable across releases are listed in docs/stability.md.

Licensed under the MIT licence.