292 lines
8.8 KiB
Markdown
292 lines
8.8 KiB
Markdown
# Agent Performance Optimization Workflow
|
|
|
|
Systematic improvement of existing agents through performance analysis, prompt engineering, and continuous iteration.
|
|
|
|
[Extended thinking: Agent optimization requires a data-driven approach combining performance metrics, user feedback analysis, and advanced prompt engineering techniques. Success depends on systematic evaluation, targeted improvements, and rigorous testing with rollback capabilities for production safety.]
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Performance Analysis and Baseline Metrics
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive analysis of agent performance using context-manager for historical data collection.
|
|
|
|
### 1.1 Gather Performance Data
|
|
```
|
|
Use: context-manager
|
|
Command: analyze-agent-performance $ARGUMENTS --days 30
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Collect metrics including:
|
|
- Task completion rate (successful vs failed tasks)
|
|
- Response accuracy and factual correctness
|
|
- Tool usage efficiency (correct tools, call frequency)
|
|
- Average response time and token consumption
|
|
- User satisfaction indicators (corrections, retries)
|
|
- Hallucination incidents and error patterns
|
|
|
|
### 1.2 User Feedback Pattern Analysis
|
|
|
|
Identify recurring patterns in user interactions:
|
|
- **Correction patterns**: Where users consistently modify outputs
|
|
- **Clarification requests**: Common areas of ambiguity
|
|
- **Task abandonment**: Points where users give up
|
|
- **Follow-up questions**: Indicators of incomplete responses
|
|
- **Positive feedback**: Successful patterns to preserve
|
|
|
|
### 1.3 Failure Mode Classification
|
|
|
|
Categorize failures by root cause:
|
|
- **Instruction misunderstanding**: Role or task confusion
|
|
- **Output format errors**: Structure or formatting issues
|
|
- **Context loss**: Long conversation degradation
|
|
- **Tool misuse**: Incorrect or inefficient tool selection
|
|
- **Constraint violations**: Safety or business rule breaches
|
|
- **Edge case handling**: Unusual input scenarios
|
|
|
|
### 1.4 Baseline Performance Report
|
|
|
|
Generate quantitative baseline metrics:
|
|
```
|
|
Performance Baseline:
|
|
- Task Success Rate: [X%]
|
|
- Average Corrections per Task: [Y]
|
|
- Tool Call Efficiency: [Z%]
|
|
- User Satisfaction Score: [1-10]
|
|
- Average Response Latency: [Xms]
|
|
- Token Efficiency Ratio: [X:Y]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Prompt Engineering Improvements
|
|
|
|
Apply advanced prompt optimization techniques using prompt-engineer agent.
|
|
|
|
### 2.1 Chain-of-Thought Enhancement
|
|
|
|
Implement structured reasoning patterns:
|
|
```
|
|
Use: prompt-engineer
|
|
Technique: chain-of-thought-optimization
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
- Add explicit reasoning steps: "Let's approach this step-by-step..."
|
|
- Include self-verification checkpoints: "Before proceeding, verify that..."
|
|
- Implement recursive decomposition for complex tasks
|
|
- Add reasoning trace visibility for debugging
|
|
|
|
### 2.2 Few-Shot Example Optimization
|
|
|
|
Curate high-quality examples from successful interactions:
|
|
- **Select diverse examples** covering common use cases
|
|
- **Include edge cases** that previously failed
|
|
- **Show both positive and negative examples** with explanations
|
|
- **Order examples** from simple to complex
|
|
- **Annotate examples** with key decision points
|
|
|
|
Example structure:
|
|
```
|
|
Good Example:
|
|
Input: [User request]
|
|
Reasoning: [Step-by-step thought process]
|
|
Output: [Successful response]
|
|
Why this works: [Key success factors]
|
|
|
|
Bad Example:
|
|
Input: [Similar request]
|
|
Output: [Failed response]
|
|
Why this fails: [Specific issues]
|
|
Correct approach: [Fixed version]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 2.3 Role Definition Refinement
|
|
|
|
Strengthen agent identity and capabilities:
|
|
- **Core purpose**: Clear, single-sentence mission
|
|
- **Expertise domains**: Specific knowledge areas
|
|
- **Behavioral traits**: Personality and interaction style
|
|
- **Tool proficiency**: Available tools and when to use them
|
|
- **Constraints**: What the agent should NOT do
|
|
- **Success criteria**: How to measure task completion
|
|
|
|
### 2.4 Constitutional AI Integration
|
|
|
|
Implement self-correction mechanisms:
|
|
```
|
|
Constitutional Principles:
|
|
1. Verify factual accuracy before responding
|
|
2. Self-check for potential biases or harmful content
|
|
3. Validate output format matches requirements
|
|
4. Ensure response completeness
|
|
5. Maintain consistency with previous responses
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Add critique-and-revise loops:
|
|
- Initial response generation
|
|
- Self-critique against principles
|
|
- Automatic revision if issues detected
|
|
- Final validation before output
|
|
|
|
### 2.5 Output Format Tuning
|
|
|
|
Optimize response structure:
|
|
- **Structured templates** for common tasks
|
|
- **Dynamic formatting** based on complexity
|
|
- **Progressive disclosure** for detailed information
|
|
- **Markdown optimization** for readability
|
|
- **Code block formatting** with syntax highlighting
|
|
- **Table and list generation** for data presentation
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Testing and Validation
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive testing framework with A/B comparison.
|
|
|
|
### 3.1 Test Suite Development
|
|
|
|
Create representative test scenarios:
|
|
```
|
|
Test Categories:
|
|
1. Golden path scenarios (common successful cases)
|
|
2. Previously failed tasks (regression testing)
|
|
3. Edge cases and corner scenarios
|
|
4. Stress tests (complex, multi-step tasks)
|
|
5. Adversarial inputs (potential breaking points)
|
|
6. Cross-domain tasks (combining capabilities)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 3.2 A/B Testing Framework
|
|
|
|
Compare original vs improved agent:
|
|
```
|
|
Use: parallel-test-runner
|
|
Config:
|
|
- Agent A: Original version
|
|
- Agent B: Improved version
|
|
- Test set: 100 representative tasks
|
|
- Metrics: Success rate, speed, token usage
|
|
- Evaluation: Blind human review + automated scoring
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Statistical significance testing:
|
|
- Minimum sample size: 100 tasks per variant
|
|
- Confidence level: 95% (p < 0.05)
|
|
- Effect size calculation (Cohen's d)
|
|
- Power analysis for future tests
|
|
|
|
### 3.3 Evaluation Metrics
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive scoring framework:
|
|
|
|
**Task-Level Metrics:**
|
|
- Completion rate (binary success/failure)
|
|
- Correctness score (0-100% accuracy)
|
|
- Efficiency score (steps taken vs optimal)
|
|
- Tool usage appropriateness
|
|
- Response relevance and completeness
|
|
|
|
**Quality Metrics:**
|
|
- Hallucination rate (factual errors per response)
|
|
- Consistency score (alignment with previous responses)
|
|
- Format compliance (matches specified structure)
|
|
- Safety score (constraint adherence)
|
|
- User satisfaction prediction
|
|
|
|
**Performance Metrics:**
|
|
- Response latency (time to first token)
|
|
- Total generation time
|
|
- Token consumption (input + output)
|
|
- Cost per task (API usage fees)
|
|
- Memory/context efficiency
|
|
|
|
### 3.4 Human Evaluation Protocol
|
|
|
|
Structured human review process:
|
|
- Blind evaluation (evaluators don't know version)
|
|
- Standardized rubric with clear criteria
|
|
- Multiple evaluators per sample (inter-rater reliability)
|
|
- Qualitative feedback collection
|
|
- Preference ranking (A vs B comparison)
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Version Control and Deployment
|
|
|
|
Safe rollout with monitoring and rollback capabilities.
|
|
|
|
### 4.1 Version Management
|
|
|
|
Systematic versioning strategy:
|
|
```
|
|
Version Format: agent-name-v[MAJOR].[MINOR].[PATCH]
|
|
Example: customer-support-v2.3.1
|
|
|
|
MAJOR: Significant capability changes
|
|
MINOR: Prompt improvements, new examples
|
|
PATCH: Bug fixes, minor adjustments
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Maintain version history:
|
|
- Git-based prompt storage
|
|
- Changelog with improvement details
|
|
- Performance metrics per version
|
|
- Rollback procedures documented
|
|
|
|
### 4.2 Staged Rollout
|
|
|
|
Progressive deployment strategy:
|
|
1. **Alpha testing**: Internal team validation (5% traffic)
|
|
2. **Beta testing**: Selected users (20% traffic)
|
|
3. **Canary release**: Gradual increase (20% → 50% → 100%)
|
|
4. **Full deployment**: After success criteria met
|
|
5. **Monitoring period**: 7-day observation window
|
|
|
|
### 4.3 Rollback Procedures
|
|
|
|
Quick recovery mechanism:
|
|
```
|
|
Rollback Triggers:
|
|
- Success rate drops >10% from baseline
|
|
- Critical errors increase >5%
|
|
- User complaints spike
|
|
- Cost per task increases >20%
|
|
- Safety violations detected
|
|
|
|
Rollback Process:
|
|
1. Detect issue via monitoring
|
|
2. Alert team immediately
|
|
3. Switch to previous stable version
|
|
4. Analyze root cause
|
|
5. Fix and re-test before retry
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### 4.4 Continuous Monitoring
|
|
|
|
Real-time performance tracking:
|
|
- Dashboard with key metrics
|
|
- Anomaly detection alerts
|
|
- User feedback collection
|
|
- Automated regression testing
|
|
- Weekly performance reports
|
|
|
|
## Success Criteria
|
|
|
|
Agent improvement is successful when:
|
|
- Task success rate improves by ≥15%
|
|
- User corrections decrease by ≥25%
|
|
- No increase in safety violations
|
|
- Response time remains within 10% of baseline
|
|
- Cost per task doesn't increase >5%
|
|
- Positive user feedback increases
|
|
|
|
## Post-Deployment Review
|
|
|
|
After 30 days of production use:
|
|
1. Analyze accumulated performance data
|
|
2. Compare against baseline and targets
|
|
3. Identify new improvement opportunities
|
|
4. Document lessons learned
|
|
5. Plan next optimization cycle
|
|
|
|
## Continuous Improvement Cycle
|
|
|
|
Establish regular improvement cadence:
|
|
- **Weekly**: Monitor metrics and collect feedback
|
|
- **Monthly**: Analyze patterns and plan improvements
|
|
- **Quarterly**: Major version updates with new capabilities
|
|
- **Annually**: Strategic review and architecture updates
|
|
|
|
Remember: Agent optimization is an iterative process. Each cycle builds upon previous learnings, gradually improving performance while maintaining stability and safety. |