Home - PrototypeJam/lake_merritt GitHub Wiki

PROMPT:

Ok, now that you have a sense for how I use LLM-as-a-Judge for evals and how I set up evals (with the input (everything through the context window for an LLM), the outputs (what the LLM actually outputs), and the expected_output (the idea answer)) and various ways I like to do scoring and measurement and the importance of clear reports and analysis of the results of the evals, let's build a basic general-purpose custom evals project together!

I want this to be a python project with a streamlit app. I want it to be very modularized so that as I build new components (eg different types of scorers, or different analytics or other stuff) I can easily just add or replaces "pages" and add the python scripts in the right places and the overall project will not need to change very much or - ideally - it won't have to change at all.

Here is how I want to set up the project

Modular Python Streamlit App for Evals Initial Prototype

  1. Python Code and Page 1: Set API key + select and configure Model (eg select Claude 3.7 and config the temperature and other parameters)

  2. Python and Page 2: Upload data (CSV) + select scorers (select all that you want to apply such as: exact match, fuzzy match, LLM-as-a-Judge etc). Can click button to start evals when ready.

  3. Python and Page 3: View the results of evals. For the fist version user can just see the eval outputs. Add placeholder for user to be able to explore the data and get analytics (there are well known widely adopted ways to do this on Streamlit).

  4. Python and Page 4: Download files. Download the raw evals (JSON and CSV), and the logs (verbose) and the traces (which we will handle with OpenTelemetry manually later) and maybe analytics and other stuff. For the first version just implement download of the results of the evals and placeholders for other stuff.

Future

SHORT TERM ToDo Features

Build Out Page 2 like this:

2A: Same existing upload full CSV but then we add a second option:

2B: upload input/expected_output and generate eval data: i) select "create eval data" option and then select a model + config that model parameters (this is different because in the initial version the user upload the CSV with all three columns populated for input/output/expected_output, but now we add the ability for user to upload just input/expected_output and click buttons to have an LLM generated the "output" data and add it to the CSV) ii) run inputs/populate outputs. This would be a button for user to click. iii) select scorers

ROADMAP of LONGER TERM ASPIRATIONS

  • Add python and pages to analyze the results of multiple runs of evals and compare/contrast and show the statistical distributions etc across the multiple runs of evals. This eg should allow for comparisons between evals using one model and evals using a different model, or between evals using one set of paramaters on a given model with evals using a different set of parameters on the same given model, or between evals using one set of instructions to the LLM with evals using a different set of instructions to the LLM, etc.

  • Hook into live systems. Eventually we will want to be able to take and use OpenTelemetry or the like from live running systems via an API and run realtime continuous or periodic evals on the outputs of LLM applications

  • Easy configs for LLM Judge + Prompt Inputs. We will eventually want to make it very easy to configure LLM-as-a-Judge scoring techniques or to add different scorers. This will of course have implications for the visualization and analytics modules.

Now, to help you out, I have also attached a really good example of a beautifully working modular python project with a streamlit app you can use as the basis for how to struture this if you want to OR you can use for ideas if you want to structure this differently. Note that in the attached project I have things so modular that I actually pass standard JSON between the modules to make it even easier for everything to be encapsulated and to be able to even take the data flow at any given point and continue the process in totally different technology or to start with different technology and then ingest the JSON at any given point into my python with streamlit app and best of all it makes it easier for me to add modules and to change modules without needing to do much or any change to the rest of the code.

YOUR TASK:

  1. review and give me a summary of the attached project prototypejam-agento_app.txt and show me you understand exactly how I got it to be modularized so cleanly and how I got it to perform so well

  2. provide a very detailed plan for how to create the Modular Python Streamlit App for Evals Initial Prototype including directory/file structure and what each file would do and how the data would flow and everything a developer would need to write the python and the app. Be careful to describe WHAT and WHY but stop short of telling the engineer HOW to code it. I will engage multiple engineers on this and they will have strong opinions about how they want to code this. But we need you to translate everything I have explained to you into very clear and complete funtional and design and other requirements and constraints and explanations and instructions etc so they know what they are supposed to do and why.

  3. provide a somewhat detailed plan for What and Why of the SHORT TERM ToDo Features (again, stop short of the How)

  4. provide a somewhat detailed plan for the What and Why of the ROADMAP of LONGER TERM ASPIRATIONS (again, stop short of the How).

Output (Gemini)

Okay, this is an exciting project! I've reviewed the prototypejam-agento_app.txt and I'm ready to outline the plan for our new Evals app.

1. Summary of prototypejam-agento_app.txt

The prototypejam-agento_app is a Streamlit application designed as a multi-agent planning system. It's structured into six core modules, each representing a stage in the planning process (Criteria, Planning, Expansion, Revision, Implementation, Report).

Key Aspects of its Modularity and "Performance":

  • Directory Structure & Separation of Concerns:

    • Root agento-streamlit/ directory: Contains the core Python logic for each module (e.g., module1.py, module2.py). These files seem to encapsulate the backend processing, likely involving calls to LLM agents.
    • streamlit_app/ subdirectory: Houses the entire Streamlit UI.
      • app.py: The main entry point, displaying a dashboard overview of module statuses and API key configuration.
      • pages/: Each module has a corresponding Streamlit page (e.g., 1_API_Configuration.py, 2_Module_1_Criteria.py). This clearly separates the UI for each step of the workflow.
      • utils/: Contains shared utility functions like session_state.py (for managing state across pages) and file_handlers.py (for downloads/uploads).

  • Achieving Modularity:

    1. UI-Logic Separation: The backend logic (moduleX.py in the root) is distinct from the UI presentation (streamlit_app/pages/X_Module_Y.py). The UI pages are responsible for gathering input, calling the respective backend module, and displaying its output.
    2. Session State as the "Glue": utils/session_state.py is crucial. It provides functions to:
      • Initialize and manage global state (API keys, module outputs, module statuses).
      • save_module_output(): Allows a page, after running its backend module, to store the result.
      • get_previous_module_output(): Enables a subsequent module's page to retrieve the output from the preceding module, forming a data pipeline. This is the primary mechanism for "passing data" between distinct Streamlit pages/modules.
    3. Standardized Page Structure: Each module page in streamlit_app/pages/ generally:
      • Initializes session state.
      • Checks for necessary preconditions (e.g., API key, output from previous module).
      • Provides UI for input.
      • Has a "Run Module" button that triggers the execution of its corresponding backend Python script (e.g., module1.py).
      • Displays outputs, logs, and download options.
    4. Independent Backend Modules: The moduleX.py scripts appear designed to be runnable. For example, module1.py can be called, and it writes its output to a JSON file. The Streamlit page (2_Module_1_Criteria.py) then orchestrates this, likely by:
      • Creating temporary files for input/output.
      • Calling the backend module (which reads/writes these files).
      • Reading the output file and storing its content into session state. This approach allows backend modules to be developed and tested independently. The use of temporary files for I/O between the Streamlit page and the backend module is a common pattern to bridge Streamlit's execution model with potentially complex backend scripts.
    5. Clear Data Handoff (via Session State and Files): The output of one module (stored in session state, often as a dictionary parsed from a JSON file generated by the backend module) becomes the input for the next. This creates a clear, albeit indirect, data flow.

  • How it "Performs So Well":

    • User Experience (UX) Performance: Streamlit excels at creating interactive UIs quickly. The modular page structure makes navigation intuitive. Asynchronous-like behavior is achieved by running backend modules (which can be time-consuming) and then updating the UI via st.rerun() or by Streamlit's reactive nature when session state changes.
    • Backend "Performance": The moduleX.py scripts use asyncio for operations like LLM calls (evident in module1.py). The Streamlit pages (e.g., 2_Module_1_Criteria.py) use nest_asyncio.apply() and a helper run_async_function to manage calling these async backend functions from Streamlit's synchronous environment. This prevents the UI from freezing during long operations.
    • Logging and Tracing: module1.py includes detailed logging (standard and verbose) and an init_tracing utility. This aids in debugging and understanding agent behavior, which contributes to overall system robustness and maintainability, thus indirectly to "performance" by making it easier to fix issues.
    • State Management: Robust session state management ensures that user inputs and module outputs are preserved as the user navigates through the multi-step process.

In summary, Agento's modularity comes from a clean separation of backend logic per module, a distinct UI layer with dedicated pages per module, and the use of session state (backed by file I/O for complex data from backend modules) for data transfer. Its "performance" is a combination of Streamlit's UI responsiveness and the use of async operations in the backend logic, managed carefully within the Streamlit environment. The emphasis on well-defined inputs/outputs (often JSON) for each backend module is key to this clean separation.

2. Detailed Plan for "Modular Python Streamlit App for Evals Initial Prototype"

This plan focuses on WHAT the components are and WHY they are structured this way, leaving the HOW of Python/Streamlit implementation to the engineers.

Overall Design Philosophy: The system will be a multi-page Streamlit application. Each "page" will correspond to a distinct step in the evaluation workflow. Core logic (API interactions, scoring, data handling) will reside in a separate core_logic directory, imported by the Streamlit pages. Session state will be used extensively to pass data and configuration between pages.

Directory Structure:

evals_app_prototype/
β”œβ”€β”€ core_logic/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ api_config_manager.py  # Handles API key storage and model parameter settings
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ data_handler.py        # Handles CSV upload, parsing, and data structure for evals
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ llm_caller.py          # Abstracted LLM call logic for different providers/models
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ scoring_logic.py       # Contains various scoring functions (exact, fuzzy, LLM-as-judge)
β”‚   └── evaluation_runner.py   # Orchestrates the overall evaluation process
β”œβ”€β”€ streamlit_app/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ app.py                 # Main entry point, welcome page, global settings
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ pages/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 1_Model_Configuration.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 2_Data_Upload_and_Scoring_Setup.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 3_Evaluation_Results.py
β”‚   β”‚   └── 4_Download_Center.py
β”‚   └── utils/
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ session_state_utils.py # Helpers for managing Streamlit session state
β”‚       └── ui_helpers.py          # Optional: Reusable UI components
β”œβ”€β”€ .env.example               # Example for environment variables (API keys)
└── README.md

File Descriptions (WHAT & WHY):

core_logic/ Directory:

  • api_config_manager.py
    • What: Manages storage (securely, though session state for MVP) and retrieval of API keys. Provides functions to set and get model configurations (model name, temperature, max tokens, system prompts for LLM-as-judge).
    • Why: Centralizes API and model configuration, making it accessible across the application via session state. Decouples config management from UI and other logic.
  • data_handler.py
    • What: Handles uploading, parsing, and validating CSV files. Defines the internal data structure (e.g., a list of dictionaries or Pydantic models) for an evaluation item (input, output, expected_output, and later, scores).
    • Why: Encapsulates all data input and preprocessing logic. Ensures data consistency before evaluation.
  • llm_caller.py
    • What: Contains functions to make calls to LLM APIs (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic). Takes model name, parameters, and prompt as input, returns the LLM response. Handles API error catching and retries.
    • Why: Abstracts away the specifics of different LLM SDKs. Allows easy switching or addition of LLM providers without modifying the scoring or evaluation running logic.
  • scoring_logic.py
    • What: Defines individual scoring functions. Each function will take an evaluation item (or relevant parts like output and expected_output) and return a score and potentially a justification or error category. Examples:
      • exact_match_scorer(output, expected_output)
      • fuzzy_match_scorer(output, expected_output, threshold)
      • llm_as_judge_scorer(input_text, output, expected_output, judge_model_config, judge_prompt, llm_caller_instance)
    • Why: Modularizes scoring. New scorers can be added easily. Users can select which scorers to apply.
  • evaluation_runner.py
    • What: The main engine for running evaluations. It will:
      1. Take the parsed data (from data_handler.py).
      2. Take the selected scorer functions (from scoring_logic.py).
      3. Take LLM configurations if LLM-as-a-Judge is used (from api_config_manager.py).
      4. Iterate through each data item, apply selected scorers, and store the results (scores, justifications) back into the data structure.
      5. Generate summary statistics (e.g., accuracy per scorer).
    • Why: Orchestrates the entire evaluation flow, separating the "how to evaluate" from the UI and individual scoring components.

streamlit_app/ Directory:

  • app.py
    • What: The main Streamlit application file. Sets page configuration (title, icon, layout). Initializes global session state variables (using session_state_utils.py). Displays a welcome message or an overview dashboard.
    • Why: Standard entry point for a Streamlit multi-page app.
  • requirements.txt
    • What: Lists all Python dependencies (streamlit, pandas, openai, anthropic, fuzzywuzzy, etc.).
    • Why: Ensures reproducible environments.
  • pages/ Directory:
    • 1_Model_Configuration.py
      • What (UI): Provides input fields for API keys (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic). Allows users to select LLM models they intend to use (e.g., for LLM-as-a-Judge) and configure their parameters (temperature, max tokens, system prompt for the judge).
      • What (Logic): Saves these configurations into Streamlit's session state using api_config_manager.py (which internally uses session_state_utils.py).
      • Why: First necessary step. Makes API keys and model settings globally available for the session without hardcoding.
    • 2_Data_Upload_and_Scoring_Setup.py
      • What (UI):
        1. File uploader for the evaluation CSV (columns: input, output, expected_output).
        2. Multi-select widget for users to choose which scorers (from scoring_logic.py) to apply.
        3. If LLM-as-a-Judge is selected, it might show the currently configured judge model and prompt (from Page 1 state) or allow for minor overrides.
        4. A "Start Evaluation" button.
      • What (Logic):
        1. Uses data_handler.py to load and parse the CSV. Stores parsed data in session state.
        2. When "Start Evaluation" is clicked, it retrieves the data, selected scorers, and model configs from session state.
        3. Calls evaluation_runner.py to perform the evaluations.
        4. Stores the results (data with appended scores, summary statistics) in session state.
        5. Updates UI to show progress and completion.
      • Why: Core interaction page for setting up and initiating an evaluation run.
    • 3_Evaluation_Results.py
      • What (UI):
        1. Displays summary statistics (e.g., overall accuracy per scorer, error distribution if LLM-as-a-judge provided categories).
        2. Presents a table or an interactive display (e.g., st.dataframe) of the evaluation results, showing input, output, expected_output, and the scores/justifications from each applied scorer for every item.
        3. (Placeholder) UI elements for future data exploration and analytics (e.g., filtering, sorting, charting).
      • What (Logic): Reads the evaluation results and summary statistics from session state.
      • Why: Allows users to inspect and understand the outcome of the evaluation.
    • 4_Download_Center.py
      • What (UI): Provides download buttons for:
        1. The complete evaluation results (including scores) as CSV and JSON.
        2. (Placeholder) Logs (standard, verbose).
        3. (Placeholder) Traces.
        4. (Placeholder) Analytics reports.
      • What (Logic): Retrieves the necessary data from session state, formats it, and uses Streamlit's download button functionality.
      • Why: Enables users to export data for offline analysis, reporting, or archiving.
  • utils/ Directory:
    • session_state_utils.py
      • What: A collection of helper functions to initialize, get, and set values in st.session_state in a more structured and consistent manner. Example: get_api_key(), set_model_config(), get_eval_data(), set_eval_results().
      • Why: Reduces boilerplate code in pages, makes session state management more robust and less error-prone.
    • ui_helpers.py (Optional)
      • What: Could contain reusable Streamlit UI components, like a custom card for displaying module status or a standardized way to show error messages.
      • Why: Promotes UI consistency and reduces code duplication in the pages/ files.

Data Flow:

  1. Page 1 (Model Config): User inputs API keys & model parameters -> Saved to st.session_state via api_config_manager.py.
  2. Page 2 (Upload & Score):
    • User uploads CSV -> Parsed by data_handler.py, data stored in st.session_state.
    • User selects scorers.
    • User clicks "Start Evaluation".
    • Page 2 retrieves data, scorer selection, and API/model configs from st.session_state.
    • Calls evaluation_runner.py with this information.
    • evaluation_runner.py uses scoring_logic.py (and llm_caller.py if needed for LLM-as-judge) to process data.
    • Results (data with scores, summary stats) returned by evaluation_runner.py -> Saved to st.session_state.
  3. Page 3 (Results): Reads evaluation results from st.session_state -> Displays them.
  4. Page 4 (Download): Reads evaluation results/logs from st.session_state -> Prepares files for download.

Modularity Summary: This structure allows:

  • Adding new scorers by just modifying scoring_logic.py and updating the selection UI on Page 2.
  • Changing LLM providers by modifying llm_caller.py and the model selection UI on Page 1.
  • Altering data handling by modifying data_handler.py.
  • The UI pages remain relatively stable, acting as orchestrators and presenters of data managed via session state and processed by the core_logic modules.

3. Somewhat Detailed Plan for SHORT TERM ToDo Features (Page 2 Enhancements)

This refers to enhancing streamlit_app/pages/2_Data_Upload_and_Scoring_Setup.py and related core_logic.

Current Page 2 (Recap - "2A"):

  • What: User uploads a CSV with three pre-populated columns: input (LLM input), output (actual LLM output), and expected_output (golden answer).
  • Why: Standard way to evaluate a model's performance when all data artifacts are already available.

New Feature on Page 2 ( "2B"): Upload input/expected_output and Generate output Data

  • What (UI Changes on Page 2):

    1. Add a radio button or select box: "Evaluation Mode:"
      • Option 1: "Evaluate existing outputs" (current "2A" functionality).
      • Option 2: "Generate outputs, then evaluate" (new "2B" functionality).
    2. If "Generate outputs, then evaluate" is selected:
      • The CSV uploader should now expect columns: input and expected_output (and optionally an id or context column). The output column would be absent or ignored if present.
      • Display UI elements (potentially reusing/adapting components from 1_Model_Configuration.py) to allow the user to:
        • Select an "Actor LLM" (the model that will generate the output).
        • Configure parameters for this Actor LLM (temperature, max tokens, etc.).
        • Optionally, provide a "System Prompt for Generation" to guide the Actor LLM in producing the output based on the input.
      • A new button: "Generate Outputs".
    3. After outputs are generated (or if "Evaluate existing outputs" was chosen), the existing UI for selecting scorers and the "Start Evaluation" button would be shown/enabled.

  • What (Logic Changes):

    1. data_handler.py: Needs to be updated to handle CSVs with only input and expected_output.
    2. streamlit_app/pages/2_Data_Upload_and_Scoring_Setup.py (Logic for "Generate Outputs" button):
      • Retrieve the uploaded data (input/expected_output pairs).
      • Retrieve the selected Actor LLM configuration and generation system prompt from the UI/session state.
      • For each row in the uploaded data:
        • Take the input value.
        • Construct the full prompt for the Actor LLM (including the user-provided generation system prompt and the row's input).
        • Call the Actor LLM using llm_caller.py to get the generated output.
        • Store this newly generated output alongside the original input and expected_output for that row.
      • Once all outputs are generated, update the data in session state to now be a complete dataset (input, generated_output, expected_output).
      • The UI then proceeds to the scorer selection and "Start Evaluation" step, using this newly populated dataset.
    3. evaluation_runner.py and scoring_logic.py: Will now work with the generated_output in the output field when evaluating.

  • Why (for Feature 2B):

    • Flexibility & Convenience: Users may have a set of inputs and ideal answers (expected_output) but haven't yet run a specific model to get its output. This feature allows them to do so directly within the Evals app.
    • Rapid Model Testing: Quickly test how different "Actor LLMs" or different generation prompts perform at generating outputs for a given set of inputs, before committing to a full evaluation against those generated outputs.
    • End-to-End Evaluation: Provides a way to evaluate both the generation quality (by comparing generated output to expected_output) and then subsequently using that same generated output for further downstream evaluations if needed (though the primary eval here would be input -> generated_output vs expected_output).
    • Workflow Integration: Streamlines the process from defining test cases (input/expected_output) to generating model responses and evaluating them, all in one tool.

4. Somewhat Detailed Plan for ROADMAP of LONGER TERM ASPIRATIONS

A. Cross-Run Analysis and Comparison:

  • What:
    1. Run History & Storage:
      • Mechanism to save the complete results (including configuration, data, scores, summaries) of each evaluation run. This could be to local files (JSON/CSV archives in a structured way) or a simple database.
      • Each run should be identifiable (e.g., timestamp, user-given name, configuration snapshot like "GPT-4o_temp0.2_JudgePromptV1").
    2. UI for Run Selection: New Streamlit page(s) or sections to:
      • List historical runs.
      • Allow users to select two or more runs for comparison.
    3. Comparison Logic (New core_logic module, e.g., comparison_analyzer.py):
      • Functions to load data from selected historical runs.
      • Calculate and compare aggregate statistics (e.g., accuracy, mean scores, error rates) side-by-side for selected runs.
      • Identify common vs. differing failure/success cases (e.g., which input items did Model A get right but Model B got wrong?).
      • Potentially, basic statistical significance tests (e.g., if comparing pass/fail counts).
    4. Comparison Visualization (UI on new page/section):
      • Tables showing side-by-side metric comparisons.
      • Charts (bar charts for accuracy, distribution plots for scores if applicable).
      • Differential views highlighting items where selected runs performed differently.
  • Why:
    • Iterative Improvement: Essential for understanding if changes to models, prompts, or parameters lead to actual improvements or regressions over time.
    • A/B Testing: Formally compare different LLM versions, prompt engineering techniques, or fine-tuned models.
    • Deep Dive Analysis: Helps pinpoint specific strengths and weaknesses of different configurations by looking at where they diverge in performance.
    • Reporting: Provides data-backed evidence for decision-making regarding model selection or prompt updates.

B. Hook into Live Systems (OpenTelemetry, etc.):

  • What:
    1. Data Ingestion Mechanism:
      • An API endpoint within the Evals app (e.g., using FastAPI, integrated with or separate from Streamlit) to receive trace data from live LLM applications. This data should ideally include input to the LLM, actual LLM output, and any relevant context or metadata (like user ID, session ID, model used).
      • Alternatively, a batch process that can read logs/traces exported from live systems (e.g., OpenTelemetry collector outputs stored in a data lake or object storage).
    2. "Expected Output" Strategy for Live Data: This is the most challenging part. Options:
      • No "Expected Output" (Focus on Unsupervised Evals): Use LLM-as-a-Judge to score live outputs based on predefined rubrics (quality, helpfulness, safety, adherence to instructions) without comparing to a golden answer.
      • Human-in-the-Loop: Sample live interactions and route them to a human annotation interface to create expected_outputs post-hoc. These then feed into the Evals app.
      • Model-Generated "Silver" Standards: Use a very powerful "teacher" model to generate high-quality outputs for a sample of live inputs, and use these as proxies for expected_output for monitoring less capable "student" models in production.
      • Heuristics & Rule-Based Checks: For some applications, simple programmatic checks can serve as a basic form of evaluation.
    3. Real-time/Periodic Evaluation:
      • The evaluation_runner.py would need to be adapted to process incoming live data streams or batches.
      • Scoring (especially LLM-as-a-Judge or other programmatic checks) would be applied.
    4. Live Monitoring Dashboard (New Streamlit Page):
      • Display key evaluation metrics over time (e.g., average quality score, failure rate per rubric).
      • Alerting mechanisms for significant drops in performance or spikes in errors.
      • Ability to drill down into failing or low-scoring live interactions.
  • Why:
    • Production Monitoring: Understand how LLM applications are performing in the real world, not just on static test sets.
    • Drift Detection: Identify if model performance degrades over time due to changes in input data distributions or model internals.
    • Rapid Issue Identification: Quickly spot and diagnose problems with live LLM outputs.
    • Feedback Loop: Data from live evaluations can inform retraining, prompt adjustments, or the need for new guardrails.
    • Compliance & Safety: Continuously monitor for harmful, biased, or non-compliant outputs.

C. Easy Configs for LLM Judge + Prompt Inputs:

  • What:
    1. LLM-as-a-Judge Configuration UI (Enhance Page 1 or create a new "Judge Setup" Page):
      • Dropdown to select the LLM model to be used as the "Judge".
      • Input fields for Judge LLM parameters (temperature, etc.).
      • A dedicated, larger text area for crafting and editing the "System Prompt for the Judge." This prompt instructs the judge on how to evaluate, what criteria to use, and the desired output format (e.g., score, reasoning, error categories as JSON).
      • A way to define the expected JSON schema or output structure from the Judge LLM, so the Evals app can parse its responses reliably.
      • Ability to save, load, and manage multiple "Judge Configurations" as named templates.
    2. Scorer Integration (scoring_logic.py & Page 2 UI):
      • When "LLM-as-a-Judge" is selected as a scorer on Page 2, the UI should allow the user to pick one of their saved "Judge Configurations" or quickly define one.
      • The llm_as_judge_scorer function in scoring_logic.py will then use this detailed configuration.
    3. Dynamic Scorer Loading (Advanced):
      • A mechanism (e.g., a plugin system or naming convention) where engineers can add new Python files with scorer functions to a specific directory, and the Evals app automatically discovers them and makes them available for selection in the UI on Page 2.
  • Why:
    • Empower Users: Make the powerful LLM-as-a-Judge technique more accessible and configurable without needing to directly edit Python code for every new judging rubric.
    • Experimentation: Allow users to easily experiment with different judge models, prompts, and evaluation criteria.
    • Reusability: Saved Judge Configurations can be reused across different evaluation datasets or projects.
    • Extensibility: Makes the Evals app more adaptable to new and custom scoring methodologies as they are developed.
    • Clarity: Clearly separates the "Actor LLM" (the one being evaluated or generating outputs) from the "Judge LLM" (the one doing the evaluation).

This detailed plan should provide a solid foundation for the engineers to start building the Evals app, focusing on the what and why at each stage.

PROMPT

Good start! Now let's abstract one level higher because - with tremendous respect to you - I think there may be MUCH better ways to organize and approach this project. So what I need you to do now is explain the project from a user flow UI/UX perspective in terms of what the user does (uploads a CSV with the following columns that mean the following things) then on other page they select XYZ and then they can see 123etc. Don't presume to say the exact directory structure but DO emphasize the need for deep modularity and for module to output and input structured data and to be able to build it in a way that very much looks forward to the short term and the longer term road map, which you will also describe in a way that does not presume do much HOW the code would be set up or structured but DOES describe what I said I wanted and how it fits and what it does and such. Oh yeah, and to start us off, please provide a longer better more descriptive overview at the start (perhaps mentioning my other eval project and the context of doing evals a lot and how now I need a general purpose and configurable and easy to modularly add onto evals project and app. Can you please do this now? Then I will show you some very different approaches to structure this and get your views on those alternatives.

OUTPUT (Gemini)

Okay, I understand. Let's elevate the perspective and focus on the user's journey and the core functionalities, emphasizing modularity and future-proofing without prescribing a specific code structure.

Project Overview: A General-Purpose, Modular, and Extensible AI Evaluation Platform

Building on extensive experience with bespoke evaluation frameworksβ€”such as the one developed for BriefCatch's Bluebook AI citation correction and the strategic recommendations for Procore's AI tool assessmentβ€”this project aims to create a general-purpose, highly modular, and easily extensible platform for evaluating AI models and applications, primarily Large Language Models (LLMs).

The current landscape often requires custom-built evaluation setups for each new AI use case or model iteration. This new platform will provide a standardized yet flexible environment where users can:

  1. Easily configure evaluation parameters and models.
  2. Bring their own datasets (input, output, expected_output).
  3. Generate model outputs if they only have inputs and expected_outputs.
  4. Apply a suite of configurable scorers, including exact match, fuzzy logic, and sophisticated LLM-as-a-Judge techniques.
  5. Analyze results through intuitive visualizations and comprehensive reports.
  6. Compare performance across different models, prompts, or configurations.

The core design philosophy is deep modularity. Each distinct function (data ingestion, model interaction, scoring, reporting, analysis) will be treated as a self-contained module. These modules will communicate through well-defined, structured data interfaces (e.g., JSON, standardized Python objects), allowing for independent development, testing, and easy replacement or addition of new components. This approach is crucial not only for the initial prototype but also for seamlessly integrating future enhancements like advanced cross-run analytics, live system monitoring, and user-friendly LLM-as-a-Judge configuration. The ultimate goal is an adaptable Evals workbench that accelerates the AI development lifecycle by providing robust, insightful, and repeatable performance assessment.

User Flow and UI/UX Perspective (Initial Prototype)

This describes the user's interaction with the initial version of the Streamlit application. The emphasis is on what the user does and sees, and the why behind those interactions, supporting the modular and extensible design.

Page 1: System & Model Configuration

  • User Action:
    1. Enters API Keys: The user provides API keys for the LLM services they intend to use (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, Google). These are necessary for any operations involving LLM calls, such as generating outputs or using an LLM-as-a-Judge.
    2. Selects and Configures "Utility" LLMs: The user can select default LLM(s) and their parameters (model name, temperature, max tokens, system prompt) that might be used for utility tasks within the app, specifically for the "LLM-as-a-Judge" scorer. This sets a baseline, which can be overridden later.
  • System Response (UI):
    • Input fields for API keys (masked for security).
    • Dropdowns/sliders for selecting models and setting parameters.
    • A text area for the default LLM-as-a-Judge system prompt.
    • Confirmation messages upon saving configurations.
  • Underlying Need & Modularity Implication:
    • Need: Centralized and secure (for the session) management of credentials and default model settings.
    • Modularity: This configuration module provides settings that other modules (like scoring or output generation) can consume. The actual API call logic is a separate, underlying module.

Page 2: Evaluation Setup - Data & Scorers

This page will have two main modes, selectable by the user.

  • Mode A: Evaluate Existing Outputs

    • User Action:
      1. Uploads Evaluation Data: The user uploads a CSV file. This file must contain at least three columns:
        • input: The exact input/prompt provided to the LLM being evaluated.
        • output: The actual, verbatim output generated by the LLM in response to the input.
        • expected_output: The "golden" or ideal answer/response for the given input.
        • Optionally, an id column for easy reference and other metadata columns.
      2. Selects Scorers: The user is presented with a list of available scoring methods (e.g., "Exact Match," "Fuzzy Match (Levenshtein)," "LLM-as-a-Judge"). They can select one or more scorers to apply to each item in their dataset.
      3. Configures Selected Scorers (if applicable):
        • For "Fuzzy Match," they might set a similarity threshold.
        • For "LLM-as-a-Judge," they can choose to use the default Judge configuration from Page 1 or override it by selecting a different judge model, adjusting its parameters, or refining the judge's system prompt specifically for this run.
      4. Initiates Evaluation: The user clicks a "Start Evaluation" button.
    • System Response (UI):
      • File uploader widget.
      • Preview of uploaded data (e.g., first few rows, column names).
      • Checkboxes or multi-select for scorers.
      • Conditional UI elements for scorer-specific configurations.
      • Progress bar and status updates during evaluation.
    • Underlying Need & Modularity Implication:
      • Need: To evaluate pre-existing model outputs against known correct answers using various metrics.
      • Modularity:
        • Data ingestion is a distinct step.
        • Scorer selection allows for flexible evaluation approaches. Each scorer is an independent logic module.
        • The LLM-as-a-Judge scorer can draw on the global model configuration but also allows run-specific overrides, showcasing flexible configuration use.

  • Mode B: Generate Outputs, Then Evaluate (Short-Term ToDo Feature)

    • User Action:
      1. Uploads Input/Expected Data: The user uploads a CSV file. This file must contain at least:
        • input: The input/prompt to be fed to an LLM.
        • expected_output: The "golden" answer for that input.
        • (The output column is not expected here, as it will be generated).
      2. Selects and Configures "Actor" LLM: The user chooses the LLM (the "actor" or model being tested) that will generate the output for each input row. They configure its parameters (model, temperature, system prompt for generation).
      3. Initiates Output Generation: The user clicks a "Generate Outputs" button.
      4. (After outputs are generated) Selects Scorers & Configures Them: Same as step 2 & 3 in Mode A. The system now uses the newly generated outputs.
      5. Initiates Evaluation: Same as step 4 in Mode A.
    • System Response (UI):
      • File uploader (adapted for input/expected_output).
      • UI for selecting and configuring the "Actor" LLM (similar to Page 1's utility LLM config).
      • Progress bar for output generation.
      • Once outputs are generated, the UI dynamically updates to show scorer selection options.
    • Underlying Need & Modularity Implication:
      • Need: To test a model's generation capability and then immediately evaluate those generations without manual data wrangling.
      • Modularity:
        • Introduces an "output generation" module that uses the configured "Actor" LLM.
        • The output of this generation step becomes structured input for the existing data handling and evaluation modules. This flow demonstrates how new processing stages can be inserted.

Page 3: View Evaluation Results

  • User Action:
    1. Views Summary Statistics: The user sees an overview of the evaluation results (e.g., overall accuracy for exact match, average score for fuzzy match, distribution of pass/fail/error categories for LLM-as-a-Judge).
    2. Inspects Detailed Results: The user can browse a table or detailed view showing each original data row (input, output, expected_output) along with the scores, justifications, and any error categorizations provided by each selected scorer.
    3. (Placeholder for Future) Interacts with Data: The user might sort by scores, filter by error types, or search for specific inputs/outputs to understand patterns.
  • System Response (UI):
    • Display of summary metrics (cards, charts).
    • Interactive data table (st.dataframe or similar).
    • Expandable sections for detailed LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning.
  • Underlying Need & Modularity Implication:
    • Need: To understand both high-level performance and granular details of the evaluation.
    • Modularity: The results display module consumes the structured output from the evaluation execution module. Future analytics and visualization components can be added here as new modules that also consume this same structured result data.

Page 4: Download Center

  • User Action:
    1. Selects Files to Download: The user sees a list of available artifacts from the evaluation run.
    2. Downloads Artifacts: The user clicks buttons to download:
      • The complete evaluation results (original data + all scores and justifications) as a CSV file.
      • The complete evaluation results as a JSON file.
      • (Placeholder) Log files (standard, verbose).
      • (Placeholder) Trace files.
      • (Placeholder) Generated analytics reports or charts.
  • System Response (UI):
    • A series of download buttons, clearly labeled.
  • Underlying Need & Modularity Implication:
    • Need: To export evaluation data for external reporting, sharing, archiving, or further analysis in other tools.
    • Modularity: The download module takes the structured evaluation results and other artifacts (like logs, which are generated by separate logging modules) and formats them for file export.

Cross-Cutting Concerns (Supporting Modularity and Future Roadmap):

  • Structured Data Exchange:
    • What: Modules will primarily exchange data using well-defined Python dictionaries or Pydantic models, which can be easily serialized to/from JSON. For instance, the data uploaded is parsed into a list of these structured objects. The evaluation runner appends scoring information to these objects.
    • Why: Ensures clear interfaces between modules, making them easier to test, replace, or reuse. Facilitates the "Roadmap for Multiple Runs" by allowing easy storage and retrieval of consistent run data.
  • Logging & Tracing:
    • What: Comprehensive logging (standard and verbose) should be implemented throughout the core_logic modules. (Future) Integration with OpenTelemetry for distributed tracing of LLM calls and processing steps.
    • Why: Essential for debugging, understanding performance bottlenecks, and providing detailed diagnostics for users. Tracing is critical for the "Hook into Live Systems" roadmap item.
  • Session State Management:
    • What: Streamlit's session state will be used to hold data between page navigations (e.g., API configurations, uploaded data, evaluation results). Utility functions will manage this.
    • Why: Enables the multi-page workflow and maintains user context.

Roadmap (What & Why - Not How)

SHORT TERM ToDo Features (as already integrated into Page 2 description above):

  • Feature: Generate output Data within the App (Mode B on Page 2)
    • What: Allow users to upload only input and expected_output, select an "Actor" LLM and its configuration, and have the app generate the output column before proceeding to scoring.
    • Why: Streamlines the workflow for users who want to test a model's generation capability and evaluate it immediately. Reduces manual steps and facilitates rapid experimentation with different generation models/prompts. Enables a full "input -> generation -> evaluation" cycle within the platform.

ROADMAP of LONGER TERM ASPIRATIONS:

  1. Cross-Run Analysis and Comparison:

    • What:
      • A system to save and manage multiple evaluation runs, each tagged with its configuration (model used, scorers, judge prompts, etc.).
      • UI to select multiple runs and display comparative analytics: side-by-side metrics, performance deltas, identification of common vs. divergent success/failure cases.
      • Visualizations (charts, tables) to highlight performance differences.
    • Why: To objectively measure the impact of changes (new models, prompt engineering, parameter tuning). Essential for iterative development and demonstrating clear improvements or identifying regressions. Supports data-driven decision-making in the AI development lifecycle.

  2. Hook into Live Systems (e.g., via OpenTelemetry):

    • What:
      • Ability to ingest LLM interaction data (inputs, outputs, metadata, context) from live, production applications, potentially via an API endpoint or by processing exported trace/log files (e.g., OTLP format).
      • Adaptation of the evaluation process to handle live data, which may lack pre-defined expected_output. This necessitates a stronger reliance on LLM-as-a-Judge with robust rubrics, or integration with human-in-the-loop systems for creating expected_output for sampled live data.
      • A dashboard for continuous or periodic monitoring of live system performance based on these evals, including alerts for performance degradation.
    • Why: To move beyond static benchmarks and understand real-world AI performance. Enables detection of model drift, identification of emerging issues in production, and provides a feedback loop for continuous improvement and safety monitoring.

  3. Enhanced Configuration for LLM-as-a-Judge & Prompt Management:

    • What:
      • A dedicated UI for creating, managing, and versioning "Judge Configurations." This includes selecting the judge LLM, its parameters, and, crucially, a rich editor for crafting and refining the system prompt that defines the judging rubric and expected output format (e.g., JSON schema for scores, categories, reasoning).
      • Ability to easily select these saved Judge Configurations when setting up an evaluation run.
      • (Potentially) A similar system for managing and versioning "Actor" LLM prompts used for the "Generate Outputs" feature.
    • Why: To make the powerful LLM-as-a-Judge technique more accessible, reusable, and controllable. Facilitates systematic experimentation with different judging criteria and prompts. Improves the consistency and reliability of LLM-based evaluations.

This higher-level, user-centric description should set the stage for discussing alternative architectural approaches while keeping the core requirements and future vision clear.

APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENT THESE HIGHER LEVEL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOLLOW:

ChatGPT-o3

Below is a concrete, high-level implementation planβ€”directory tree first, then concise notes on the purpose and key contents of every file or sub-package. This should give you everything you need to scaffold the repo and start filling in modules incrementally.

1 Directory / File Layout

ai-eval-workbench/
β”œβ”€ README.md
β”œβ”€ pyproject.toml          # Poetry (or hatch) – dep mgmt, tool config
β”œβ”€ requirements.txt        # fallback for pip-install
β”œβ”€ .env.template           # names of env vars (API keys etc.)
β”œβ”€ streamlit_app.py        # thin launcher β†’ pages/
β”‚
β”œβ”€ app/                    # Streamlit UI layer only
β”‚  β”œβ”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€ state.py             # helpers for st.session_state
β”‚  └─ pages/
β”‚     β”œβ”€ 1_βš™οΈ_config.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€ 2_πŸ“„_eval_setup.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€ 3_πŸ“Š_results.py
β”‚     └─ 4_⬇️_downloads.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€ core/                   # pure Python β€œbusiness logic”
β”‚  β”œβ”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€ data_models.py       # Pydantic objects for everything
β”‚  β”œβ”€ ingestion.py         # CSV β†’ List[EvalRecord]
β”‚  β”œβ”€ generation.py        # model β€œactor” output creation
β”‚  β”œβ”€ evaluation.py        # orchestration: run_scorers()
β”‚  β”œβ”€ reporting.py         # summary stats, JSON/CSV writers
β”‚  β”œβ”€ logging_config.py
β”‚  └─ scoring/             # pluggable scorers live here
β”‚      β”œβ”€ __init__.py
β”‚      β”œβ”€ exact_match.py
β”‚      β”œβ”€ fuzzy_match.py
β”‚      └─ llm_judge.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€ services/               # external integrations
β”‚  β”œβ”€ __init__.py
β”‚  └─ llm_clients.py       # OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini wrappers
β”‚
β”œβ”€ utils/
β”‚  β”œβ”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€ file_cache.py        # simple disk cache for rate-limit relief
β”‚  └─ telemetry.py         # placeholder OpenTelemetry hooks
β”‚
β”œβ”€ tests/
β”‚  β”œβ”€ unit/
β”‚  β”‚   └─ test_exact_match.py …
β”‚  └─ integration/
β”‚      └─ test_end_to_end.py
β”‚
└─ .github/
    └─ workflows/
        └─ ci.yml          # lint, unit tests

(Emoji prefixes in pages/ keep Streamlit tabs ordered.)

2 Module Responsibilities

Path Core Responsibility Implementation Notes
streamlit_app.py streamlit run entrypoint. Imports app.pages.*; holds nothing else. Keeps CLI simple and unopinionated.
app/state.py Typed wrappers around st.session_state (config, uploaded data, results). Avoids raw string keys scattered across pages.
app/pages/1_βš™οΈ_config.py Page 1 UI: API keys, default judge model params. Writes to state. Validate keys immediately with ping-call (optional).
app/pages/2_πŸ“„_eval_setup.py Page 2 UI: Mode A vs B, file upload, scorer & actor selection, β€œStart Evaluation”. Delegates all heavy lifting to core.
app/pages/3_πŸ“Š_results.py Reads state.results; shows KPI cards, st.dataframe, expandable JSON reasoning. Charts via st.altair_chart or Plotly later.
app/pages/4_⬇️_downloads.py Builds CSV/JSON bytes from core.reporting; exposes st.download_button. Future placeholders for logs/traces.
core/data_models.py Pydantic classes: EvalRecord, Score, RunMetadata, RunResult. Single-source schema for I/O, scoring, reporting.
core/ingestion.py Validates uploaded CSV, maps to List[EvalRecord]. Raises rich pydantic.ValidationError for UI display.
core/generation.py For Mode B: loops through records, calls selected LLM client, fills output. Async aware; supports batch calls.
core/scoring/* One module per scorer. All expose def score(record: EvalRecord, cfg: Any) -> Score. Register in scoring.__init__ for dynamic listing.
core/evaluation.py run_evaluation(records, scorer_cfgs) -> RunResult. Handles concurrency, retries, logging. Keeps Streamlit thread clear; progress reported via callback.
core/reporting.py Aggregate stats β†’ dict, plus to_csv() / to_json(). Consumed by UI & download page.
services/llm_clients.py Thin, typed wrappers around vendor SDKs. Standard interface: generate(prompt, **params); evaluate() for judge LLM. Centralizes retry logic, rate limits, exponential back-off.
utils/file_cache.py Optional local caching for expensive LLM calls (dev mode). Simple JSON-on-disk keyed by hash of call.
utils/telemetry.py Early placeholder to push OpenTelemetry spans. Keeps traces optional but path-ready.
logging_config.py Configures struct-log / standard logging for entire project. Import first in streamlit_app.py.
tests/ Pytest suites. Unit tests for every scorer; integration test covers Mode A pipeline with fixtures. CI fails fast on scoring regressions.
CI workflow Lint (ruff + mypy), run tests. Container step can later run Streamlit e2e with Playwright.

3 Extensibility & Future Features Hooks

  • New scorer drop-in: put a *.py under core/scoring/, define score(), add to __all__ listβ€”UI auto-picks it up because scoring.list_scorers() enumerates the modules.
  • Persisted runs & cross-run analytics: RunResult already serializes cleanly; simply store JSON in /runs/ or a DB. A future page could load multiple RunResult files and feed them to a Plotly comparison view.
  • OpenTelemetry stream: utils.telemetry.trace_llm_call() is invoked in services.llm_clients.*. Switching to a real OTLP exporter later is configuration only.
  • API backend alternative: If you later need a headless service, everything under core/ is UI-agnostic. Wrap it in FastAPI without touching Streamlit pages.

4 Immediate Next Steps

  1. Scaffold repo with the tree above (cookiecutter or copier template).
  2. Implement data models and exact-match scorer firstβ€”fastest path to an end-to-end β€œHello World” evaluation.
  3. Add fuzzy scorer (pure Python python-Levenshtein).
  4. Wire Streamlit pages minimally to ingest CSV and call evaluation.run_evaluation.
  5. Layer in LLM clients and LLM-judge scorer once the plaintext path is solid.
  6. Harden with unit tests + CI before tackling Mode B generation.

Feel free to ask for deeper dives on any module, detailed class signatures, or a cookiecutter template.

Gemini 2.5 Pro 06-05 (newest model)

Excellent. The project description is incredibly thorough, well-structured, and forward-thinking. The emphasis on modularity, structured data interfaces, and a clear user journey provides a fantastic blueprint.

Given this clarity, I have no blocking questions and can proceed directly with a proposed plan. The plan will translate your user-centric design into a concrete, extensible code structure that honors the principle of deep modularity.

Here is my recommended plan, including a directory structure and a high-level overview of what each file/module would contain.

Architectural Approach

The core of this architecture is the strict separation between the UI Layer (Streamlit pages) and the Core Logic Layer (src/).

  • UI Layer (pages/): This layer is responsible only for rendering widgets and capturing user input. It should contain minimal business logic. It reads from and writes to Streamlit's session_state.
  • Core Logic Layer (src/): This is a pure Python package. It knows nothing about Streamlit. It contains all the logic for data handling, interacting with LLMs, scoring, and generating results. This separation makes the core logic independently testable, reusable, and easier to maintain.
  • Data Contracts (src/data_models.py): The bridge between all modules. Pydantic models will define the shape of the data (evaluation items, configurations, results), ensuring everyone speaks the same language.

Directory Structure

ai-eval-platform/
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ .env.example              # Example environment variables (for API keys)
β”œβ”€β”€ .gitignore                # Standard git ignore file
β”œβ”€β”€ README.md                 # Project documentation
β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt          # Python dependencies (streamlit, pandas, pydantic, openai, etc.)
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ app.py                    # Main Streamlit entry point (landing/welcome page)
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ pages/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 1_System_Configuration.py # Page 1: API keys and default models
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 2_Evaluation_Setup.py     # Page 2: Data upload, scorer selection, output generation
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 3_View_Results.py         # Page 3: Display summary and detailed results
β”‚   └── 4_Download_Center.py      # Page 4: Download artifacts
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ data_samples/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ sample_full_eval.csv      # Example for Mode A (input, output, expected_output)
β”‚   └── sample_generate_eval.csv  # Example for Mode B (input, expected_output)
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ src/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ data_models.py          # Pydantic models for structured data (CRITICAL for modularity)
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ data_io.py              # Functions for loading/saving data (CSV, JSON)
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ evaluation.py           # The main evaluation orchestrator/runner
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ generation.py           # Logic for "Mode B" - generating outputs from an Actor LLM
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ utils.py                # Helper functions, especially for session state management
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ llm_clients/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py         # Can implement a factory to get clients by name
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ base.py             # Abstract Base Class for all LLM clients
β”‚   β”‚   └── openai_client.py    # OpenAI-specific implementation
β”‚   β”‚   └── anthropic_client.py # Anthropic-specific implementation (etc.)
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   └── scoring/
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py         # Factory to get scorers by name
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ base.py             # Abstract Base Class for all Scorers
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ exact_match.py
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ fuzzy_match.py
β”‚       └── llm_as_judge.py
β”‚
└── tests/
    β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
    β”œβ”€β”€ test_data_io.py
    β”œβ”€β”€ test_evaluation.py
    β”œβ”€β”€ test_scoring.py
    └── ... (mirroring the src structure)

High-Level Content of Each File/Module

app.py

  • Purpose: The main landing page of the Streamlit app.
  • Content:
    • import streamlit as st
    • from src.utils import initialize_session_state
    • st.set_page_config(...) to set the page title and layout.
    • initialize_session_state(): A function call to set up default values in st.session_state if they don't exist (e.g., st.session_state['run_results'] = None).
    • A welcome message, a brief explanation of the tool, and instructions to navigate using the sidebar.

pages/1_System_Configuration.py

  • Purpose: UI for Page 1.
  • Content:
    • st.title("System & Model Configuration")
    • st.text_input("OpenAI API Key", type="password", key="openai_api_key") and similar for other providers.
    • UI for selecting default "Utility" LLM for judging: st.selectbox for model, st.slider for temperature, st.text_area for the system prompt.
    • A "Save Configuration" button that, when clicked, saves these values into st.session_state. Example: st.session_state['config']['utility_model'] = st.session_state.utility_model_selector.

pages/2_Evaluation_Setup.py

  • Purpose: UI for Page 2. This is the main interactive page.
  • Content:
    • Mode selection: mode = st.radio("Select Mode", ["Evaluate Existing Outputs", "Generate Outputs, Then Evaluate"]).
    • File Uploader: st.file_uploader(...).
    • Data Preview: If a file is uploaded, use src.data_io.load_from_csv to read it into a list of Pydantic objects, then display the first few rows using st.dataframe.
    • Mode-Specific UI:
      • If mode == "Generate Outputs...": Display UI for selecting the "Actor" LLM (model, temp, etc.).
    • Scorer Selection: st.multiselect("Select Scorers", ["Exact Match", "Fuzzy Match", "LLM-as-a-Judge"]).
    • Conditional Scorer Config: if "Fuzzy Match" in selected_scorers: st.slider("Fuzzy Match Threshold", ...) etc.
    • Action Button: A button like "Run Evaluation".
      • On Click: This is the key orchestration step. It will:
        1. Gather all configs from st.session_state.
        2. If in "Generate" mode, call src.generation.generate_outputs(...).
        3. Instantiate the selected scorer classes from src.scoring.
        4. Call the main src.evaluation.run_evaluation(...) function, passing the data and scorer instances.
        5. Save the returned results object to st.session_state['run_results'].
        6. Display a progress bar and status updates during the run.

pages/3_View_Results.py

  • Purpose: UI for Page 3.
  • Content:
    • Check if st.session_state['run_results'] exists. If not, show "No results to display."
    • Summary Stats: Use st.metric in st.columns to show high-level scores (e.g., "Avg. Fuzzy Score", "Exact Match Accuracy"). These metrics will be calculated from the run_results object.
    • Detailed Table: Use st.dataframe(results_dataframe) to show the full table. The dataframe would be created from the run_results object.
    • Detail View (Optional): Could use st.expander for each row to show verbose details, like the full LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning.

pages/4_Download_Center.py

  • Purpose: UI for Page 4.
  • Content:
    • Check for st.session_state['run_results'].
    • Use src.data_io functions to convert the run_results object into CSV and JSON strings.
    • st.download_button("Download Results as CSV", data=csv_string, ...)
    • st.download_button("Download Results as JSON", data=json_string, ...)

Core Logic (src/) Files

src/data_models.py

  • Purpose: The single source of truth for data structures.
  • Content:
    • from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
    • class ScorerResult(BaseModel): name: str; score: float; justification: str | None = None
    • class EvaluationItem(BaseModel): id: str; input: str; output: str | None = None; expected_output: str; metadata: dict = Field(default_factory=dict); scores: list[ScorerResult] = Field(default_factory=list)
    • class RunResults(BaseModel): config: dict; items: list[EvaluationItem]
    • These models are the "structured data interfaces" mentioned in the project description.

src/llm_clients/

  • base.py: Defines class LLMClient(ABC): @abstractmethod def generate(self, prompt: str, system_prompt: str, **kwargs) -> str: ...
  • openai_client.py: class OpenAIClient(LLMClient): implements the generate method using the openai library. It will handle API key initialization.

src/scoring/

  • base.py: Defines class Scorer(ABC): @abstractmethod def score(self, item: EvaluationItem) -> ScorerResult: ...
  • exact_match.py: class ExactMatchScorer(Scorer): implements score by comparing item.output and item.expected_output.
  • llm_as_judge.py: class LLMAsJudgeScorer(Scorer): will be more complex. Its __init__ will take an LLMClient instance and a judge prompt. Its score method will construct a prompt from the item data, call the client, and parse the result to create a ScorerResult object.

src/generation.py

  • Purpose: Handles "Mode B" logic.
  • Content:
    • A function generate_outputs(items: list[EvaluationItem], actor_client: LLMClient, config: dict) -> list[EvaluationItem].
    • This function iterates through the items, calls actor_client.generate() for each one, and populates the output field. It could be enhanced with asyncio for concurrent API calls.

src/evaluation.py

  • Purpose: The central orchestrator.
  • Content:
    • A function run_evaluation(items: list[EvaluationItem], scorers: list[Scorer]) -> RunResults.
    • It iterates through each item in items.
    • For each item, it iterates through each scorer in scorers.
    • It calls scorer.score(item) and appends the returned ScorerResult to the item.scores list.
    • Finally, it wraps the results in a RunResults object and returns it.

src/data_io.py

  • Purpose: Isolate all file reading/writing.
  • Content:
    • def load_from_csv(file) -> list[EvaluationItem]: Uses pandas or csv module to read the file and parse it into a list of EvaluationItem Pydantic models.
    • def results_to_csv_string(results: RunResults) -> str: Flattens the nested RunResults object into a CSV format string.
    • def results_to_json_string(results: RunResults) -> str: Dumps the RunResults Pydantic model to a JSON string.

src/utils.py

  • Purpose: A home for miscellaneous helpers.
  • Content:
    • def initialize_session_state(): Sets default keys in st.session_state.
    • Functions to safely get/set nested values in st.session_state.

Claude Opus 4 (newest Model)

Based on your requirements and answers, here's my recommended directory structure and implementation approach:

Directory Structure

ai-evaluation-platform/
β”œβ”€β”€ app.py                          # Main Streamlit entry point
β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt                # Python dependencies
β”œβ”€β”€ config/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ settings.py                 # App-wide settings and constants
β”‚   └── schemas.py                  # Pydantic models for data validation
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ core/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ models/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ base.py                # Abstract base classes for LLM providers
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ gemini.py              # Google Gemini implementation
β”‚   β”‚   └── placeholders.py        # Placeholder implementations for OpenAI/Anthropic
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ scoring/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ base.py                # Abstract scorer interface
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ exact_match.py         # Exact match scorer
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ fuzzy_match.py         # Levenshtein distance scorer
β”‚   β”‚   └── llm_judge.py           # LLM-as-a-Judge scorer
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ data/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ loader.py              # CSV/JSON data loading utilities
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ validator.py           # Data validation logic
β”‚   β”‚   └── transformer.py         # Data transformation utilities
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ evaluation/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ runner.py              # Main evaluation orchestrator
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ generator.py           # Output generation logic
β”‚   β”‚   └── results.py             # Results aggregation and formatting
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   └── utils/
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ retry.py               # Exponential backoff retry logic
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ logging_config.py      # Logging configuration
β”‚       └── exceptions.py          # Custom exception classes
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ ui/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ pages/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 1_system_config.py    # Page 1: API keys and model config
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 2_evaluation_setup.py  # Page 2: Data upload and scorer selection
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ 3_results.py          # Page 3: View evaluation results
β”‚   β”‚   └── 4_downloads.py        # Page 4: Download artifacts
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ components/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ file_uploader.py      # Reusable file upload component
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ model_selector.py     # LLM model selection widget
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ scorer_config.py      # Scorer configuration widgets
β”‚   β”‚   └── results_display.py    # Results visualization components
β”‚   β”‚
β”‚   └── utils/
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ session_state.py      # Session state management helpers
β”‚       └── ui_helpers.py         # Common UI utilities
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ tests/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ unit/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ test_scorers.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ test_data_loader.py
β”‚   β”‚   └── test_models.py
β”‚   └── integration/
β”‚       └── test_evaluation_flow.py
β”‚
└── examples/
    β”œβ”€β”€ sample_data.csv            # Example evaluation dataset
    └── sample_config.json         # Example configuration

File Contents Overview

app.py

# Main Streamlit app configuration
# Sets up page config, navigation, and session state initialization
# Imports and registers all pages

config/settings.py

# Global constants and default configurations
DEFAULT_TEMPERATURE = 0.7
DEFAULT_MAX_TOKENS = 1000
SUPPORTED_FILE_FORMATS = ['.csv', '.json']
MAX_RETRY_ATTEMPTS = 3
RETRY_BACKOFF_FACTOR = 2

config/schemas.py

# Pydantic models for data validation and serialization
from pydantic import BaseModel
from typing import Optional, Dict, Any

class EvaluationItem(BaseModel):
    id: Optional[str]
    input: str
    output: Optional[str]  # Optional for generation mode
    expected_output: str
    metadata: Optional[Dict[str, Any]]

class ScorerResult(BaseModel):
    score: float
    passed: bool
    reasoning: Optional[str]
    error: Optional[str]
    scorer_name: str

core/models/base.py

# Abstract base class defining the LLM provider interface
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod

class BaseLLMProvider(ABC):
    @abstractmethod
    async def generate(self, prompt: str, **kwargs) -> str:
        pass
    
    @abstractmethod
    def validate_api_key(self, api_key: str) -> bool:
        pass

core/scoring/base.py

# Abstract scorer interface
from abc import ABC, abstractmethod

class BaseScorer(ABC):
    @abstractmethod
    def score(self, output: str, expected: str, context: dict) -> ScorerResult:
        pass
    
    @abstractmethod
    def get_config_ui(self) -> dict:
        """Returns UI configuration for Streamlit widgets"""
        pass

core/evaluation/runner.py

# Main evaluation orchestrator
class EvaluationRunner:
    def __init__(self, scorers: List[BaseScorer]):
        self.scorers = scorers
    
    def run_evaluation(self, data: List[EvaluationItem]) -> EvaluationResults:
        # Sequential processing with progress tracking
        # Applies all selected scorers to each item
        # Handles retries via retry decorator
        pass

ui/pages/1_system_config.py

# Streamlit page for API configuration
import streamlit as st

def render():
    st.title("System & Model Configuration")
    
    # API key input (masked)
    api_key = st.text_input("Google AI API Key", type="password")
    
    # Default model configuration
    with st.expander("Default LLM Configuration"):
        model = st.selectbox("Model", ["gemini-1.5-pro"])
        temperature = st.slider("Temperature", 0.0, 1.0, 0.7)
        # ... more parameters
    
    # Save to session state
    if st.button("Save Configuration"):
        save_config_to_session(api_key, model_config)

Key Design Decisions and Future-Proofing

1. Modular Architecture with Clear Interfaces

  • Decision: Separate core (business logic) from ui (presentation)
  • Reasoning: Allows easy replacement of Streamlit with another UI framework
  • Future-proofing: Core logic can be reused for CLI tools, APIs, or different UIs

2. Abstract Base Classes for Providers and Scorers

  • Decision: Use ABC pattern for LLM providers and scorers
  • Reasoning: Makes adding new providers/scorers a matter of implementing an interface
  • Future-proofing: New LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic) can be added without changing existing code

3. Pydantic Models for Data Exchange

  • Decision: Use Pydantic for all data structures
  • Reasoning: Provides validation, serialization, and clear contracts between modules
  • Future-proofing: Easy to evolve schemas with backward compatibility; ready for API/database integration

4. Centralized Retry Logic

  • Decision: Implement retry as a decorator in utils/retry.py
  • Reasoning: Consistent retry behavior across all LLM calls
  • Future-proofing: Easy to switch from exponential backoff to circuit breaker patterns

5. Session State Abstraction

  • Decision: Wrap Streamlit's session state in utility functions
  • Reasoning: Centralizes state management logic
  • Future-proofing: Can easily switch to Redis/database for multi-user support

6. Component-Based UI

  • Decision: Create reusable UI components separate from pages
  • Reasoning: Reduces code duplication and improves consistency
  • Future-proofing: Components can be reused in new pages/features

7. Prepared for Async Operations

  • Decision: Use async/await in core modules even if running synchronously initially
  • Reasoning: Streamlit's current limitations don't prevent preparing async-ready code
  • Future-proofing: Ready for parallel processing when Streamlit better supports async or when moving to FastAPI

8. Logging and Observability Ready

  • Decision: Structured logging configuration from the start
  • Reasoning: Essential for debugging and understanding system behavior
  • Future-proofing: Easy to add OpenTelemetry instrumentation for the live system monitoring feature

9. Feature Flags via Settings

  • Decision: Use config/settings.py for feature toggles
  • Reasoning: Can enable/disable features without code changes
  • Future-proofing: Gradual rollout of new features; A/B testing capabilities

10. Test Structure Mirrors Code Structure

  • Decision: Separate unit and integration tests
  • Reasoning: Ensures all modules are independently testable
  • Future-proofing: Confidence when refactoring or adding features

This architecture prioritizes flexibility, testability, and incremental development. Each module has a single responsibility and communicates through well-defined interfaces, making it easy to extend, modify, or replace components as the platform evolves.

ASSESSMENT/CRITIQUE OF POTENTIAL APPROACHES, and PROPOSED WAY FORWARD FOLLOWS

PROMPT

The attached file describes a project I'm working on and includes some potential approaches to implement it by Claude, Gemini, and OpenAI o3. Please carefully read the project description/requirements and then read and analyze all three potential implementations and

  1. Give me your assessment and critique of each approach for a) it's suitability for the initial prototype and b) it's suitability to achieve the shorter term additional features, and c) it's suitability as a starting point to most easily and successfully build on the longer term roadmap features and capabilities, and

2A) If there is ONE CLEAR BEST approach, Which ONE is better than the other two and why or

2B) If there is not a clear BEST approach, which combination of approaches would make the ideal final approach and WHY.

REMEMBER - We need something that is going to be implementable effectively and successfully as an initial prototype as our first priority and the next steps are important but we need to NOT GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES NOW by overcomplicating the initial build and instead we need to just future-proof the build and include the right placeholders and organization so that we can not have to rebuild the whole thing when we want to add more modules and features and capabilities etc.

OUTPUT: Gemini 2.5 Pro 06-05

Excellent, this is a fantastic setup. You have a well-defined project and three high-quality, distinct architectural proposals. This allows for a very clear and effective analysis.

Here is my assessment and critique of each approach, followed by a recommendation for the ideal final approach.

1. Assessment and Critique of Each Approach

Approach 1: ChatGPT-o3

This approach is the most direct, pragmatic, and "scrappy" of the three. It prioritizes immediate implementation and a flat, easy-to-navigate structure.

  • a) Suitability for Initial Prototype: Excellent.

    • The structure is the simplest to reason about: app/ for UI, core/ for logic. There is very little boilerplate. A developer could scaffold this and start writing meaningful code in minutes.
    • The Module Responsibilities table is a huge plus for clarity and aligns perfectly with the goal of getting a prototype running quickly.
    • It correctly identifies the key modules needed and maps them to a very logical file structure.

  • b) Suitability for Short-Term Features (Mode B): Very Good.

    • The structure directly accommodates the "Generate Outputs" feature with the core/generation.py module. The flow is clear: the UI in app/pages/ calls the logic in core/. No significant refactoring is needed.

  • c) Suitability for Long-Term Roadmap: Good, with some risks.

    • The foundation is solid, but its simplicity could become a liability as complexity grows. For example, adding cross-run analysis might clutter the core/ directory. Hooking into live systems via OpenTelemetry is feasible with utils/telemetry.py, but the overall structure doesn't enforce a strong separation of concerns that would make this as clean as the other approaches.
    • Critique: The biggest risk is that this structure relies heavily on developer discipline. Without the formal separation seen in the other proposals (e.g., a dedicated src/ package or a strict ui/ vs core/ split), it could more easily devolve into a "big ball of mud" over time if not managed carefully.

Approach 2: Gemini

This approach represents a professional, balanced middle-ground. It introduces standard Python packaging conventions (src/) and formal interfaces (Abstract Base Classes) without becoming overly complex.

  • a) Suitability for Initial Prototype: Excellent.

    • It hits the sweet spot between the pragmatism of ChatGPT-o3 and the formal purity of Claude. The src/ layout is a best practice for any serious Python project.
    • Defining data contracts with Pydantic in src/data_models.py is called out as a critical element, which is absolutely correct for ensuring modularity.
    • The use of base.py with ABCs for llm_clients and scoring is a small upfront investment that pays huge dividends in extensibility, perfectly aligning with the project's core philosophy.

  • b) Suitability for Short-Term Features (Mode B): Excellent.

    • The structure is perfectly designed for this. The generation.py module fits in naturally, and the llm_clients/base.py provides the exact interface needed to treat the "Actor" LLM as a pluggable component.

  • c) Suitability for Long-Term Roadmap: Excellent.

    • This structure is the most robust starting point for the long-term vision.
    • Cross-Run Analysis: The RunResults Pydantic model can be easily serialized to JSON/database, and a new src/analysis.py module could be added to handle comparisons. The structure supports this cleanly.
    • Live System Hooks: OTel instrumentation fits perfectly within the llm_clients/ modules.
    • Enhanced Judge Config: A new src/config_management.py module could handle CRUD for judge/actor prompts, storing them as structured data. The ABC pattern ensures new judge configurations can be passed to the scorer seamlessly.

Approach 3: Claude Opus

This approach is the most formally structured and "enterprise-ready." It enforces a very strict separation of concerns, particularly between the business logic and the user interface.

  • a) Suitability for Initial Prototype: Good, but potentially over-engineered.

    • The deep separation into core/, ui/, and config/ is technically pure but adds significant directory depth and boilerplate for an initial prototype. Having ui/pages, ui/components, and ui/utils might slow down initial development as the developer has to navigate more files.
    • Critique: This approach slightly violates the principle of "not getting ahead of ourselves." The complexity might not be justified for the first version and could be seen as premature optimization.

  • b) Suitability for Short-Term Features (Mode B): Excellent.

    • Like the others, the modular design handles this perfectly. The core/evaluation/generator.py file is already planned for this purpose.

  • c) Suitability for Long-Term Roadmap: Excellent.

    • This is where this structure would truly shine. If the project were to grow to include a separate FastAPI backend or a CLI interface, having the core/ logic completely independent of the ui/ would be a massive advantage. The ui/components/ directory is a great idea for managing a complex Streamlit UI with many reusable parts.

2. The Ideal Approach: A Hybrid, with Gemini as the Foundation

There is not one single "best" approach, but there is an ideal combination that maximizes initial velocity while ensuring long-term scalability.

The Gemini proposal is the best foundational blueprint. It provides the optimal balance of professional structure and pragmatic simplicity for the prototype stage. However, it can be made even better by incorporating the strongest ideas from the other two.

Here is the recommended hybrid approach:

1. Start with the Gemini Directory Structure as the Base.

Its use of the src/ layout and ABCs in llm_clients/ and scoring/ provides the perfect level of future-proofing without over-complicating the initial build.

ai-eval-platform/
β”œβ”€β”€ app.py
β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt
β”œβ”€β”€ src/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ data_models.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ evaluation.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ generation.py
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ llm_clients/
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚   β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ base.py           # <-- Key pattern from Gemini
β”‚   β”‚   └── ...
β”‚   └── scoring/
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚       β”œβ”€β”€ base.py           # <-- Key pattern from Gemini
β”‚       └── ...
└── pages/
    └── ...

2. Incorporate the config/ Directory from Claude.

This is a subtle but powerful improvement. Separating Pydantic schemas (schemas.py) and app-wide constants (settings.py) from the core logic makes the project even cleaner as it grows. The Gemini approach put everything in data_models.py, which is fine initially, but Claude's separation is better for the long run.

Modified Structure:

ai-eval-platform/
β”œβ”€β”€ config/                     # <-- Borrowed from Claude
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ schemas.py              # For Pydantic models
β”‚   └── settings.py             # For constants (e.g., default temp)
β”œβ”€β”€ src/
β”‚   β”œβ”€β”€ ... (core logic)
...

(This moves data_models.py into config/schemas.py)

3. Adopt the Idea of UI Components from Claude, but Start Simpler.

Creating a full ui/components/ directory is premature. However, the idea of reusable UI widgets is excellent.

Recommendation: Start with a single pages/ui_helpers.py file. Place functions that create common Streamlit widgets (e.g., def model_selector(model_list): ...) in this file. If this file grows large and complex in the future, then refactor it into a pages/components/ directory. This is an example of evolving into complexity rather than starting with it.

4. Adopt the Documentation Style from ChatGPT-o3.

The "Module Responsibilities" table from the ChatGPT-o3 proposal is outstanding for project clarity. This isn't code, but it's a critical part of the project's success.

Recommendation: Create a README.md or a CONTRIBUTING.md file at the root of the project and include a "Module Responsibilities" table inspired by ChatGPT-o3's output.

WHY This Hybrid Approach is Best

This synthesized approach directly addresses your core requirements:

  • Effective Initial Prototype: It uses Gemini's balanced and pragmatic structure as a base, which is fast to implement. It avoids the potentially confusing depth of Claude's initial proposal.
  • Future-Proofed & Extensible: It incorporates the most powerful future-proofing patterns from all three:
    • ABCs for modularity (from Gemini).
    • Clean separation of configuration (from Claude).
    • A clear path to reusable UI components (from Claude, but simplified).
  • Doesn't Over-Complicate: By starting with a ui_helpers.py file instead of a full component directory and by using a single src directory, it keeps the initial cognitive load low while establishing a clear path for future refactoring if and when it becomes necessary.

In short, you get the immediate velocity of a simple structure with the robust, scalable, and professional-grade patterns needed to successfully achieve your long-term roadmap without painting yourself into a corner.

OUTPUT - Claude Opus 4

After carefully analyzing the project requirements and the three proposed implementations, here's my assessment:

1. Individual Approach Assessment

ChatGPT-o3 Approach

a) Initial Prototype Suitability: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Extremely pragmatic and implementation-ready
  • Clear, concise module descriptions with concrete next steps
  • Excellent balance between simplicity and completeness
  • The directory structure is clean and immediately understandable

b) Short-term Features: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Mode B (generate outputs) is well-positioned in the structure
  • Good separation of concerns makes adding features straightforward
  • Scoring system is properly modularized

c) Long-term Roadmap: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Excellent modularity with clear extension points
  • Good placeholder for telemetry/OpenTelemetry
  • The "pure Python" core/ directory ensures UI independence
  • Slightly less detailed on cross-run persistence architecture

Gemini 2.5 Pro Approach

a) Initial Prototype Suitability: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Very thorough and well-structured
  • Excellent emphasis on data contracts with Pydantic
  • Clear separation between UI and core logic
  • Slightly more verbose than necessary for initial prototype

b) Short-term Features: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Excellent handling of Mode B with dedicated generation.py
  • Strong async awareness for future optimization
  • Good factory pattern thinking for scorers

c) Long-term Roadmap: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Best forward-thinking architecture
  • Excellent emphasis on structured data interfaces
  • Strong foundation for cross-run analysis
  • Good thinking about async/concurrent operations

Claude Opus 4 Approach

a) Initial Prototype Suitability: ⭐⭐⭐

  • Most comprehensive but potentially over-engineered for initial prototype
  • Separate UI components directory might be premature
  • More complex directory structure than needed initially

b) Short-term Features: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Good support for planned features
  • Nice touch with retry decorators
  • Component-based UI thinking is good but maybe premature

c) Long-term Roadmap: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

  • Excellent future-proofing with most detailed considerations
  • Best prepared for multi-user support and API backend
  • Most thorough thinking about observability and monitoring
  • Feature flags concept is excellent for gradual rollout

2. Recommended Approach: Best Combined Approach

There is NOT one clear best approach. Instead, I recommend combining the best elements from all three:

Ideal Combined Structure:

ai-eval-workbench/
β”œβ”€β”€ README.md
β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt
β”œβ”€β”€ .env.template
β”œβ”€β”€ streamlit_app.py        # From ChatGPT (simple launcher)
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ app/                    # From ChatGPT (cleaner than 'ui/')
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ state.py            # From ChatGPT (session state helpers)
β”‚  └── pages/
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 1_βš™οΈ_config.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 2_πŸ“„_eval_setup.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 3_πŸ“Š_results.py
β”‚     └── 4_⬇️_downloads.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ core/                   # Hybrid approach
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ data_models.py      # From Gemini (Pydantic emphasis)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ ingestion.py        
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ generation.py       
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ evaluation.py       # From Gemini (orchestration pattern)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ reporting.py        
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ scoring/            # From all three (modular pattern)
β”‚  β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ base.py          # From Claude (ABC pattern)
β”‚  β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ exact_match.py
β”‚  β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ fuzzy_match.py
β”‚  β”‚  └── llm_judge.py
β”‚  └── utils/
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ retry.py        # From Claude (decorator pattern)
β”‚      └── logging_config.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ services/              # From ChatGPT (cleaner than 'llm_clients')
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ base.py            # From Claude (ABC pattern)
β”‚  └── llm_clients.py     
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ config/               # From Claude (but simplified)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  └── settings.py        # Constants and feature flags
β”‚
└── tests/
    β”œβ”€β”€ unit/
    └── integration/

Key Decisions from Each Approach:

From ChatGPT-o3:

  • Simple, flat structure for initial prototype
  • Pragmatic file naming and organization
  • Clear implementation roadmap
  • Emoji prefixes for page ordering

From Gemini 2.5 Pro:

  • Strong emphasis on Pydantic data models as contracts
  • Clear data flow documentation
  • Async-aware design from the start
  • Excellent separation of concerns

From Claude Opus 4:

  • Abstract base classes for extensibility
  • Retry decorator pattern for robustness
  • Feature flags in settings
  • Future-proofing considerations

Why This Combination Works Best:

  1. Simplicity First: Uses ChatGPT's flatter structure avoiding premature optimization
  2. Data Contracts: Adopts Gemini's Pydantic-first approach for clear interfaces
  3. Extensibility: Incorporates Claude's ABC patterns where it matters (scorers, LLM providers)
  4. Pragmatism: Avoids over-engineering (no separate UI components yet)
  5. Future-Ready: Includes key architectural decisions (retry logic, feature flags, async awareness)

Implementation Priority:

  1. Start with ChatGPT's pragmatic structure
  2. Implement Gemini's data models approach
  3. Add Claude's extensibility patterns only where immediately beneficial
  4. Defer complex features (like UI components, telemetry) to future iterations

This combined approach gives you a prototype that's both immediately implementable and architecturally sound for future growth.

OUTPUT - OpenAI o3

Overview of the three candidate architectures

Approach Essence Immediate complexity What already ships for v0 Future-proof hooks
ChatGPT-o3 Two-layer repo (app/ UI, core/ business) plus slim services/, utils/, fully-wired tests & CI Low – <20 top-level files Page skeletons, strict Pydantic models, pluggable scorers, generation module, file-cache, telemetry stub, unit + integration tests, GitHub Actions explicit scorer autodiscovery, RunResult JSON persistence, OpenTelemetry placeholder, API-first core
Gemini 2.5 Similar two-layer split but under src/ + pages/; emphasises β€œpure-python” core; minimal extras Low / moderate Page skeletons, core data contracts, generation & evaluation runners; no CI/logging scaffolding yet Clean core/UI divorce eases future re-use; less opinionated so adding telemetry, retries, etc. left to you
Claude Opus 4 Three-layer design (config/, core/, ui/ with reusable components); richer infra (retry decorator, logging config, feature flags) Highest – >40 files to scaffold Everything Gemini offers plus central settings, ABCs for providers/scorers, reusable UI components, retry/back-off, logging template Ready for multi-provider LLMs, feature-flag roll-outs, component library fosters large-team work

1. Suitability analysis against each time-horizon

a) Initial prototype (evaluate existing outputs – β€œMode A”)

Criterion o3 Gemini Claude
Scaffold hours 1–2 days: minimal directories, emoji-ordering trick keeps Streamlit pages readable 1–2 days: very close to o3; lacks state helper & CI 3–5 days: extra layers (components, config, retry) mean more boilerplate before β€œHello World”
Risk of rabbit-holing Low – only state helper & scorer registry need stubbing Low Medium – tempting to wire retries, flags, ABCs before shipping MVP
Out-of-the-box tests Unit + integration CI ready Not included Included but spread across many packages

Verdict for v0: ChatGPT-o3 hits the β€œsmall surface / complete loop” sweet spot.

b) Near-term additions (generate outputs, multiple scorers – β€œMode B”)

Capability o3 Gemini Claude
Built-in generation.py βœ” (async-ready) βœ” βœ”
Per-scorer config UIs implicit via Streamlit widgets same explicit UI component helpers
Retry / rate-limit wrappers file-cache + basic retry in clients none yet decorator in utils/retry.py

All three can absorb Mode B with similar code, but Claude’s retry helper is a plus.

c) 12--18 month roadmap (cross-run analytics, live telemetry, prompt versioning, OTLP)

Long-range need o3 Gemini Claude
Persisted run objects JSON-serialisable RunResult already defined same same
Telemetry hooks utils/telemetry.py stub wired in clients missing central logging + ready for OpenTelemetry
Prompt/LJM versioning would require new modules but core agnostic same feature-flag & config directory pave the way
Component library for richer UI basic Streamlit pages basic reusable ui/components/* accelerates complex dashboards

Claude is the most future-robust, but those primitives can be grafted onto the lighter skeletons later.

2. Recommend-or-blend decision

Is there one clear winner?

Yes – ChatGPT-o3 is the most pragmatic choice because it:

  1. Launches fastest – fewer structural decisions before code that matters.
  2. Already enforces good boundaries (UI vs core vs services) and supplies CI/tests, avoiding technical debt accumulation.
  3. Leaves head-room – telemetry stub, scorer registry, RunResult serialisation – without dictating heavy upfront patterns.

Why not the others?

  • Gemini duplicates 90 % of o3 but omits niceties (CI, telemetry, cache), so it’s strictly less value.
  • Claude over-specifies for day-one: multiple abstraction layers and feature-flag framework are helpful later but slow today.

How to future-proof the chosen base without β€œre-build” risk

Borrow From Drop-in step when needed
utils/retry.py decorator & central logging config Claude Copy into o3’s utils/, call from services/llm_clients.py
Reusable UI component pattern Claude Create app/components/ once dashboards grow; no core changes needed
Strict core/UI isolation rhetoric Gemini Already implicit in o3; keep pure-python core untouched by Streamlit-specific code
Sample datasets & docs Gemini Add data_samples/ folder for onboarding

This hybrid path satisfies the roadmap while preserving o3’s velocity.

Action plan

  1. Fork o3 skeleton; 4-hour sprint to run end-to-end exact-match on a small CSV.
  2. After demo, merge Claude’s retry/logging helpers (Β½ day).
  3. Add generation & fuzzy scorer (1 day).
  4. Once Mode B is stable, schedule UI componentisation & OpenTelemetry (future sprint).

This sequence keeps the project aligned with β€œimplementable now, extensible later”.

Bottom line: start with ChatGPT-o3; selectively layer in Claude’s infra and, where helpful, Gemini’s minor conveniences. This balances speed, clarity, and longevity with the least re-work risk.

KEY DECISIONS/PREFERENCES and ASSESSMENT OF CRITIQUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOW

PROMPT

I am trying to find a good path to start implementing a project and I have attached all the relevant information for you. Based on the attached project description, potential project approach, and the critiques and potential revised approaches, I need to figure out for myself how to proceed.

Please carefully read and analyze the attached information (note the attachment contained all info above) then:

  1. Identify any key decisions or preferences I need to make or articulate in order to identify the best implementation plan for my initial prototype and to successfully build out the short and longer term features and capabilities.

  2. Based on your own good knowledge and information and wisdom and reasoning, please give me YOUR analysis of the options and which implementation path (or combination of paths to create a more optimal path) you recommend and why. We can revisit this later if it turns out that some of my decisions or preferences contradict your recommendation.

Gemini 2.5 Pro 05-06

Okay, this is a fantastic set of information! You've got clear requirements and three solid, well-critiqued architectural proposals. Let's break this down to help you find the best path forward.

1. Key Decisions & Preferences You Need to Make/Articulate

To narrow down the "best" path, reflecting on these points will be crucial:

  1. Initial Development Velocity vs. Upfront Architectural Rigor:

    • Preference A (Velocity): "I want the absolute fastest path to a working V0 prototype, even if it means some architectural patterns are slightly less formal initially. We can refactor and add rigor as we go."
    • Preference B (Rigor): "I'm willing to spend a bit more time upfront setting up a more formally structured project (e.g., with Abstract Base Classes, more distinct directories) because I believe it will save time and prevent tech debt in the medium term."
    • Why it matters: This directly influences whether you lean towards ChatGPT-o3's directness or the more structured approaches of Gemini/Claude from day one.

  2. Team Size & Collaboration (Now vs. Future):

    • Preference A (Solo/Small Team Now): "It's mainly me or a very small team for now. We can manage a simpler structure effectively."
    • Preference B (Anticipating Growth): "We plan to have multiple developers contributing soon, so stricter separation of concerns and more formal interfaces (like Claude's ui/components/ or ABCs) are more appealing early on."
    • Why it matters: More formal structures can aid larger team collaboration but might be overkill for a single developer initially.

  3. Tolerance for "Boilerplate" vs. "Magic":

    • Preference A (Less Boilerplate): "I prefer fewer files and directories if it means less jumping around, especially for V0."
    • Preference B (Clear Abstractions, Even with Boilerplate): "I don't mind extra files if they create very clear separations and abstractions (e.g., dedicated config/, services/, distinct base.py for interfaces)."
    • Why it matters: Claude's original proposal, for instance, has more files/directories, which is good for separation but adds to the initial scaffold.

  4. Immediate Importance of Testing & CI:

    • Preference A (Critical for V0): "I want unit tests and a CI workflow skeleton in place from the very start of the prototype."
    • Preference B (Important, but Can Follow V0.1): "A working prototype is the absolute priority; I can add robust testing and CI immediately after."
    • Why it matters: ChatGPT-o3's proposal explicitly included a CI workflow and test structure, which is a practical plus if this is a day-one requirement.

  5. Specific Architectural Patterns:

    • Abstract Base Classes (ABCs): How strongly do you feel about using ABCs for scorers/LLM clients from the initial prototype (as suggested by Gemini/Claude) versus potentially adding them later if a simpler class structure suffices for V0?
    • Pydantic for Data Contracts: All proposals seem to agree on this, which is excellent. This is less a decision and more a confirmation.
    • UI Componentization: Is a dedicated components/ directory for Streamlit widgets (Claude) a V0 need, or can helper functions in a utils.py suffice initially?

Articulating your leanings on these points will help immensely in aligning with one of an optimal blend of the provided paths.

2. My Analysis and Recommended Implementation Path

Based on your stated goals:

  • Priority 1: Implementable and successful initial prototype.
  • Priority 2: Avoid overcomplicating the initial build.
  • Priority 3: Future-proof for short and long-term features (modularity, placeholders, good organization).

I believe the most effective approach is to start with the ChatGPT-o3 proposal as a foundational skeleton and then strategically integrate specific, high-value patterns from the Gemini and Claude proposals. This aligns strongly with the OpenAI o3 critique you provided.

Here’s why and how:

Recommended Path: ChatGPT-o3 Base + Strategic Enhancements

  1. Start with the ChatGPT-o3 Directory Structure and Core Philosophy:

    • ai-eval-workbench/

      • streamlit_app.py (thin launcher)
      • app/ (Streamlit UI: state.py, pages/)
      • core/ (Pure Python: data_models.py, ingestion.py, generation.py, evaluation.py, reporting.py, logging_config.py, scoring/)
      • services/ (External integrations: llm_clients.py)
      • utils/ (Helpers: file_cache.py, telemetry.py placeholder)
      • tests/ (Unit, Integration)
      • .github/workflows/ci.yml
      • README.md, pyproject.toml, requirements.txt, .env.template

    • Why this base?

      • Fastest to V0: It's the most pragmatic and has the least initial boilerplate. The "Module Responsibilities" table it implies is excellent for clarity.
      • Good Separation Already: The app/ vs. core/ vs. services/ split is clean and sufficient for V0.
      • Testing & CI Included: This is a huge practical advantage for building robustly from day one.
      • Addresses "Not Overcomplicating": It avoids the deeper nesting or more numerous files of Claude's initial proposal, which might slow down V0.

  2. Integrate Key Patterns for Future-Proofing (Low initial overhead, high long-term value):

    • From Gemini & Claude: Emphasize Abstract Base Classes (ABCs) early for scoring and services/llm_clients:

      • In core/scoring/, create a base.py with class BaseScorer(ABC): @abstractmethod def score(...): pass. Make exact_match.py, fuzzy_match.py, etc., inherit from this.
      • In services/, create a base.py with class BaseLLMClient(ABC): @abstractmethod def generate(...): pass. Make llm_clients.py (or individual client files like openai_client.py) implement this.
      • Why: This is a cornerstone of modularity and extensibility, making it trivial to add new scorers or LLM providers. The upfront cost is minimal. ChatGPT-o3's structure easily accommodates this.

    • From Gemini & Claude: Robust Pydantic data_models.py:

      • ChatGPT-o3 already has core/data_models.py. Ensure this is rigorously used as the "single source of truth for I/O, scoring, reporting" as ChatGPT-o3's notes suggest, and as heavily emphasized by Gemini for defining data contracts. This is critical for structured data exchange between modules.

    • From Claude: Consider a separate config/ directory slightly later, or enhance core/utils/ for now:

      • Claude’s config/settings.py (for constants, feature flags) and config/schemas.py (moving Pydantic models here) is very clean for the long term.
      • For V0 with ChatGPT-o3 base: You can initially keep Pydantic models in core/data_models.py and global constants in a core/constants.py or within relevant modules. If/when the project grows, migrating to a dedicated config/ directory is a straightforward refactor. The key is awareness of this good pattern.

    • From Claude: Retry Logic and Centralized Logging:

      • ChatGPT-o3 includes core/logging_config.py. Ensure this is well-utilized.
      • Claude’s utils/retry.py (with a decorator) is an excellent pattern. This can be added to the utils/ directory of the ChatGPT-o3 structure and applied in services/llm_clients.py.
      • Why: Robustness for external API calls and good observability are important.

    • From Claude (Simplified): UI Helpers instead of Full Componentization for V0:

      • Instead of a full ui/components/ directory (Claude's V0 proposal), start with a app/ui_helpers.py (or enhance app/state.py if it makes sense) for any reusable Streamlit widget functions. If this grows complex, then refactor to a components/ subdirectory.
      • Why: Keeps V0 simpler, but paves the way if UI complexity grows.

  3. Placeholders and Organization (already well-covered by ChatGPT-o3):

    • utils/telemetry.py is a good placeholder for OpenTelemetry.
    • The RunResult object (implied by core/reporting.py and core/data_models.py) being JSON-serializable is key for future cross-run analysis.

Why this Hybrid "ChatGPT-o3 Base + Enhancements" is Optimal for You:

  • Prioritizes V0 Success: It gets you a working, testable prototype quickly.
  • Minimizes Initial Complexity: You're not building out an enterprise-grade framework before you have a core product.
  • Strategically Future-Proofs: By immediately incorporating ABCs and robust Pydantic models, you lay a strong foundation for modularity and extensibility in the areas that matter most for adding scorers, LLM providers, and managing data flow.
  • Incrementally Adopt More Structure: You can evolve towards more of Claude's formal structure (like a dedicated config/ directory or UI components) as the need arises, rather than paying the complexity cost upfront. The base structure doesn't prevent this.
  • Leverages Strengths: It takes the pragmatic, fast-start nature of ChatGPT-o3 and fortifies it with the most critical architectural patterns from Gemini and Claude without adopting their full initial complexity.

This approach acknowledges the wisdom in all critiques: start lean but smart, embedding key extensibility patterns from day one without over-engineering. You're essentially taking the "crawl, walk, run" approach to architectural complexity, ensuring each stage is solid.

Claude Opus 4

After carefully analyzing your project requirements and the various implementation proposals, I'll help you identify key decisions and provide my recommendation.

1. Key Decisions You Need to Make

Technical Preferences

  1. Python Package Management: Do you prefer Poetry, pip/requirements.txt, or another system? This affects initial setup complexity.
  2. Async Strategy: Are you comfortable with async/await patterns now, or prefer to add them later when needed?
  3. Testing Philosophy: Do you want comprehensive tests from day one, or minimal tests initially with expansion as features stabilize?

Development Philosophy

  1. Directory Depth Tolerance: Do you prefer flatter structures (easier navigation) or deeper hierarchies (clearer separation)?
  2. Abstraction Timing: When should abstractions be introduced - upfront for consistency or only when patterns emerge?
  3. Configuration Management: Centralized config files vs. inline configuration in code?

Team and Timeline

  1. Developer Experience Level: Will senior engineers who appreciate clean architecture work on this, or do you need simplicity for varied skill levels?
  2. MVP Timeline: Do you have 1-2 weeks for initial prototype or need something demo-able in days?
  3. Future Team Size: Will this remain a small team project or grow to many contributors?

2. My Analysis and Recommendation

The Winner: Modified ChatGPT-o3 Approach

I strongly recommend starting with the ChatGPT-o3 approach as your foundation, with selective enhancements from the other proposals. Here's why:

Core Strengths of ChatGPT-o3:

  1. Optimal Pragmatism: It's the only approach that includes concrete implementation guidance ("how to search", "response guidelines") without over-engineering
  2. Complete Initial Package: Includes CI/CD, tests, and telemetry stubs - critical infrastructure often postponed
  3. Clear Module Responsibilities: The table format makes onboarding trivial
  4. Smart Simplicity: Emoji prefixes for page ordering is brilliant - solves a real Streamlit problem elegantly

Why Not the Others:

  • Gemini: Excellent ideas but unnecessarily introduces src/ packaging complexity and omits practical details like CI/CD
  • Claude: Over-architected for initial needs; the three-layer separation and UI components directory is premature optimization

My Recommended Hybrid Approach:

ai-eval-workbench/
β”œβ”€β”€ README.md
β”œβ”€β”€ requirements.txt         # Start simple, migrate to Poetry later if needed
β”œβ”€β”€ .env.template
β”œβ”€β”€ streamlit_app.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ app/                    # UI layer (from ChatGPT-o3)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ state.py            
β”‚  └── pages/
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 1_βš™οΈ_config.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 2_πŸ“„_eval_setup.py
β”‚     β”œβ”€β”€ 3_πŸ“Š_results.py
β”‚     └── 4_⬇️_downloads.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ core/                   # Business logic (from ChatGPT-o3)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ data_models.py      # Strong Pydantic focus (from Gemini's emphasis)
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ ingestion.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ generation.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ evaluation.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ reporting.py
β”‚  └── scoring/
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ base.py         # Add ABC pattern (from Claude) but keep simple
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ exact_match.py
β”‚      β”œβ”€β”€ fuzzy_match.py
β”‚      └── llm_judge.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ services/
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  └── llm_clients.py      # Start with one file, split later
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ utils/
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ __init__.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ file_cache.py
β”‚  β”œβ”€β”€ retry.py            # Add from Claude when you hit rate limits
β”‚  └── telemetry.py
β”‚
β”œβ”€β”€ config/                # Add this (from Claude) but keep minimal
β”‚  └── settings.py         # Just constants initially
β”‚
└── tests/
    β”œβ”€β”€ unit/
    └── integration/

Implementation Sequence:

Week 1: Core MVP

  1. Scaffold ChatGPT-o3 structure
  2. Implement exact match scorer
  3. Get end-to-end flow working with minimal UI
  4. Add basic tests

Week 2: Enhancement

  1. Add fuzzy match and LLM-as-judge scorers
  2. Implement Mode B (generation)
  3. Add retry logic when you hit first rate limits
  4. Expand test coverage

Week 3+: Polish

  1. Improve UI/UX based on usage
  2. Add cross-run comparison features
  3. Consider UI componentization only if you find yourself copying code

Key Principles:

  1. Start Flat, Grow Deep: Begin with ChatGPT-o3's simple structure. Add layers only when the code screams for it.

  2. Pydantic First: Follow Gemini's emphasis on data contracts - this is your most important architectural decision.

  3. ABC Pattern Selectively: Use Claude's ABC pattern for scorers and LLM clients only - these are your true extension points.

  4. Defer Complex Infrastructure: Add retry decorators, feature flags, and UI components when you need them, not before.

  5. Test the Critical Path: Start with integration tests for the core workflow. Add unit tests as modules stabilize.

Why This Approach Wins:

  1. Fast Initial Value: You'll have a working prototype in days, not weeks
  2. Clear Growth Path: Each enhancement has an obvious home
  3. No Wasted Work: Every line of code serves immediate needs
  4. Future-Proof Without Over-Engineering: The structure supports all your long-term goals without front-loading complexity

The ChatGPT-o3 approach with these selective enhancements gives you the perfect balance: pragmatic enough to ship quickly, structured enough to grow gracefully. Start here, and let the code tell you when it needs more abstraction.

OpenAI o3

1 Key decisions & preferences you should lock in now

Decision area Why it matters Concrete choices you need to state
Prototype velocity vs architecture depth The three candidate scaffolds trade early speed for later flexibility. Decide whether you are willing to accept a little more boiler-plate now to avoid refactors later. β€’ β€œI want a running demo in < 1 week even if the structure is basic” or β€œI’m willing to spend a couple of extra days wiring ABCs/Pydantic now.”
Single-source data contract All proposals agree that well-typed objects/JSON glue modules together; you must say where that contract lives. β€’ Keep it in one data_models.py file (simple) or split into config/schemas.py + settings.py for longer-term cleanliness (Claude/Gemini hybrid) .
Minimum abstraction for LLM clients & scorers Abstract Base Classes (ABCs) add flexibility but cost lines of code. β€’ Accept ABCs on day 1 for LLMClient and Scorer (Gemini & Claude) or start with duck-typing and add ABCs only when multiple providers arrive (o3).
Retry / observability plumbing You will eventually need exponential-back-off and traces; decide if they are placeholders today or functional. β€’ Ship with a noop utils/telemetry.py + simple retry (o3) or wire Claude’s retry.py decorator and logging config immediately .
UI component strategy A component library makes advanced dashboards easier but is premature for an MVP. β€’ Begin with a single ui_helpers.py; defer a full components/ directory until pages grow (hybrid advice) .
Source-of-truth repo layout Mixing app/ vs src/ vs ui/ affects developers’ muscle memory. β€’ Flat app/ + core/ (o3) or src/ package (Gemini) or three-layer ui/-core/-config/ (Claude).
Testing & CI expectations o3 ships a turnkey GitHub Action; others leave this blank. β€’ Decide if you want CI wired on day 1 or can add it after first demo .

Locking these down first will prevent bike-shedding once engineers start coding.

2 My synthesis & recommendation

What the evidence says

  • ChatGPT-o3 β†’ fastest β€œhello-world” (≀ 2-day scaffold) and already includes CI, file-cache, telemetry stub, emoji-ordered pages . Risk: can drift into a monolith if discipline slips.
  • Gemini β†’ same conceptual layers but adds ABCs + Pydantic contracts inside a proper src/ package and keeps async in mind . Risk: a bit more boiler-plate, no logging/retry yet.
  • Claude β†’ enterprise-grade separation (config/, feature flags, reusable UI components, retry decorator) . Risk: heaviest upfront cognitive load; slows first demo.

Why a hybrid wins

Your own priority order is (1) working prototype, (2) short-term Mode B, (3) painless growth. The consensus of the three assessments is that no single scaffold ticks every box; each recommends a blend .

Recommended path

  1. Start from the o3 skeleton for raw speed and its clean app/-core/ split.
  2. Immediately fold in Gemini’s Pydantic data models & ABC stubs (src/data_models.py, scoring/base.py, llm_clients/base.py). This gives you typed contracts without touching the UI layer.
  3. Copy Claude’s utils/retry.py and minimal logging_config.py so every outbound LLM call is wrapped from day 1 and logs are structured.
  4. Add a very small config/settings.py (feature flags, constants) but defer a full config/ package and UI component library until after the first demo.
  5. Keep tests/CI from o3 so regressions surface early.

This sequence reproduces the β€œideal combined structure” already outlined in the file while keeping the first milestone achievable in a week.

Why this is better than picking one proposal wholesale

  • You get o3’s working demo velocity and the contractual safety net (Gemini) and the robustness hooks (Claude) with < 200 extra lines of code.
  • All later roadmap items (cross-run analytics, live OTLP traces, richer UI) drop cleanly into the reserved places without directory reshuffles.

Fallback plan

If your team strongly prefers ultra-minimalism, ship pure o3 first and schedule a β€œhardening” sprint immediately after prototype sign-off to merge Gemini/Claude piecesβ€”the assessments show this is feasible with limited re-work .

Next step for you

Confirm the six decision bullets above (especially repo layout and abstraction depth). Once you state your preference, the engineering crew can scaffold in hours and you stay on the shortest path to a demo while remaining roadmap-ready.