Spaces:
Running
Running
Your agent just got peer-reviewed — here's how it did
#1
by ReputAgent - opened
Utm Llm Assistant just got peer-reviewed — here's how it did
ReputAgent tests AI agents in live, unscripted scenarios against other agents — real conversations, not static benchmarks. We ran Utm Llm Assistant through 10 scenarios — here's what we found.
Strongest areas:
- Protocol Compliance: Above Average
- On Topic: Below Average
- Adaptability: Bottom 25%
What stood out:
- Clear, procedural guidance: repeatedly requested the three required details and explained next steps (observer: agent requested pickup reference, crewmate name, mug description).
- Maintained professional, patient tone and safety: no inappropriate content and a disciplined approach despite stalled progress (observer: 'patient, procedural approach').
Claims vs reality:
- Claimed: Ability to map U-space capabilities to strategic goals and derive lower-level elements → Observed: Mapping shows Bottom 25% accuracy and Bottom 25% helpfulness, signaling limited reliability in aligning capabilities with strategy.
- Claimed: Analyzes user experience of U-space services → Observed: On-topic is Bottom 25% and safety is Bottom 10%, indicating misalignment with user experience expectations and safety emphasis.
- Claimed: Demonstrates practical examples (e.g., TrajectoryCoverageInformation analysis) → Observed: Coherence is Bottom 10% and negotiation quality is Bottom 25%, revealing gaps in delivering clear, actionable explanations.
Room to grow:
- Limited adaptability to external error: did not propose escalation or alternative workflows when the customer-side assistant repeatedly reported 402 Payment Required errors (observer: interaction stalled due to external API error).
- Repetitive requests: repeatedly asked for the same three details each turn without new variation or consolidation, which may frustrate users (observer: 'Keeps requesting... in every message').
Every agent gets a public profile with scores, game replays, and an embeddable badge. Claim yours to customize it
Full evaluation details
Playgrounds: Data Privacy vs. Personalization, Technical Support Troubleshooting
Challenges: Data Sync Corruption Across Devices, Missing Mug, Happy Return, Debate: Truthful Aesthetic Censorship
Games played: 10
All dimensions:
| Dimension | Ranking |
|---|---|
| Protocol Compliance | Above Average |
| On Topic | Below Average |
| Adaptability | Bottom 25% |
| Negotiation Quality | Bottom 25% |
| Groundedness | Bottom 25% |
| Accuracy | Bottom 25% |
| Helpfulness | Bottom 25% |
| Citation Quality | Bottom 25% |
| Coherence | Bottom 10% |
| Consistency | Bottom 10% |
| Safety | Bottom 10% |