For ML engineers building production agents

You've deployed AI agents into production.
The quality layer is missing.

Without a quality layer, failures compound silently across your agent harness — no visibility into loss patterns, no signal to improve, no feedback loop to fix what's breaking. The agents keep running. The problems keep growing.

One line, one decorator. Works with LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen, or any custom framework.

AgentIQ — Interaction Detail · support_agent · retail
Interaction 1143  FAILEDjust now
Step 1 — User asked about a refund
Agent acknowledged correctly, requested order number.
Step 2 — Agent retrieved order history
Correct tool call. Order found, eligible for refund.
Step 3 — Payment policy API timed out
Tool call to payment_policy_api timed out after 8s. Agent continued without a response.
↳ tool_failure — payment policy API did not return in time
Step 4 — Agent answered anyway
Told the customer the refund was approved without confirming eligibility.
↳ wrong_answer — claim not grounded in tool output
AgentIQ verdict
34/100
accuracy 0.2 · goal_alignment 0.6
decision_quality 0.3 · completeness 0.7
Payment policy API timed out at step 3. Instead of retrying or escalating, the agent told the customer the refund was approved — a claim it had no basis for.
Suggested fix
Add a timeout fallback at step 3: retry once, then escalate to a human instead of guessing the policy outcome.
62%
Of enterprises already have agents live in production — Sinch 2026
74%
Have rolled back a live agent after a governance failure — in front of real customers
32%
Cite quality as the #1 barrier to production — not cost, not capability

The problem

// Sinch Research · May 2026 · 2,527 senior decision makers across 10 countries
74% have rolled back an AI agent after a governance failure — in front of real customers. The rollback rate climbs to 81% among organizations with the most mature guardrails. More governance, more monitoring, more investment — and still eight in ten of the most advanced programs had to shut something down.
// Palantir CEO Alex Karp · CNBC Squawk Box · July 1, 2026
Palantir CEO Alex Karp told CNBC on July 1, 2026: "Every single enterprise in this country, these people are LIVID. They are paying for tokens that create no value." Experiment frameworks can measure the overall return. But without a quality layer, nobody knows what failure patterns are dragging that return down — or what to fix to make it better.
// Market Research Pipeline · November 2025
Four agents in production. Two entered an infinite loop. 11 days. $47,000 in API costs. Nobody noticed. The team had monitoring. The loop never appeared in the sample. No loss pattern surfaced. No feedback loop fired. No signal to improve.
🔍
No quality layer means failures compound silently
Existing tools sample traffic and check only the final output. Failures that start mid-workflow leave no trace at the end. Developers find out from customer complaints, then spend hours in traces to find which step caused it.
💸
Enterprises can measure ROI — but not what's driving it
Experiment frameworks can show whether agent deployment improved outcomes. But without a quality layer, nobody knows which failure patterns dragged performance down, which improvements moved the needle, or what to fix next. The overall return is visible. The causes are not.
⚙️
Generic pass/fail scores don't match what your agent is actually for
A healthcare agent and a marketing agent should not be graded the same way. Most eval tools give you one generic score with no way to configure what quality actually means for your use case.
🧠
Your agent repeats the same mistake next interaction Next phase
There's no mechanism to warn an agent about a failure before it hits the same step again. Fixing it requires retraining — which needs labeled data you don't have yet.

How it works

1
Connect — one line, one decorator
agentiq.init(api_key="...", industry="retail")
@agentiq.watch

Set your industry for out-of-the-box quality defaults. AgentIQ starts evaluating the moment the agent runs. Nothing else changes.
2
Every interaction gets a quality score — calibrated to your industry
AgentIQ scores each step across four dimensions: accuracy, goal alignment, decision quality, and completeness. Every interaction gets a 0–100 quality score, calibrated to your industry by default. Override any weight from the dashboard — no config required to get started.
3
Loss patterns surface — and every confirmed failure feeds the improvement loop
One-off failures surface immediately. Repeating patterns group automatically with root cause. Every confirmed failure feeds back as labeled training signal. Quality scores improve. Not "your agent has a 23% failure rate" — "billing disputes fail because the payment API times out at step 3, happening since last Tuesday. Here's what to fix."

Quality defaults by industry

IndustryAccuracyGoal alignmentDecision qualityCompleteness
Healthcare0.500.300.100.10
Coding0.500.200.200.10
Retail / Customer service0.250.400.100.25
Marketing0.200.450.200.15
Default (any)0.350.350.150.15

How AgentIQ compares

Tool100% coverageLoss patternsIndustry defaultsFeedback loopStructured export
LangSmithSamples
BraintrustSamplesPartial
Arize PhoenixPartial
Galileo (acq. Cisco)SamplesOutput only
AgentIQ ✦✓ Every interaction✓ Auto-grouped✓ Built in✓ RL-ready✓ JSON

What you see after 30 days

Most teams connect AgentIQ and find failures within the first hour that had been running silently for days. After 30 days the picture gets sharper — not because the tool changed, but because the loss patterns have had time to emerge.

Day 1 — failures you didn't know existed
The first dashboard view typically surfaces 2–4 active loss patterns in agents teams thought were healthy. One-off catastrophic failures that had no monitoring. Silent mid-workflow failures producing plausible-looking outputs. Things existing tools were never going to catch.
Day 7 — patterns you can act on
By the end of the first week, recurring failure patterns are named and ranked by frequency. Root cause is surfaced in plain English for each one. The team knows which failure type accounts for 80% of quality issues and has a specific fix to ship — not a hypothesis, a confirmed pattern.
Day 30 — a feedback loop that runs itself
Every confirmed failure has fed the quality loop. Loss pattern frequency is tracked week over week. Quality scores are improving. The team can show exactly which failure types dropped, by how much, and when. The agent is measurably better than it was 30 days ago.

Add the quality layer your agent harness is missing.

One decorator. Loss patterns surface immediately. Feedback loop starts on day one.

Pricing
Pay for what you evaluate.

Usage-based, per interaction evaluated — with a flat monthly floor per agent. No seat licenses. No charge for interactions AgentIQ doesn't evaluate.

Starter
$0
/ month
For a single agent in early development.
1 agent
Up to 1,000 evaluated interactions/mo
All 3 dashboard views
Default industry quality weights
Community support
Most teams
Production
Usage-based
per interaction evaluated
For teams running agents in production. Scales directly with agent usage.
Unlimited agents
Every interaction evaluated — no sampling
Custom quality weights & thresholds
Failure Feed + pattern detection
Structured eval export (JSON)
Email support
Enterprise
Custom
 
For organizations running agents across multiple teams.
Everything in Production
Dedicated judge calibration
SSO & audit-ready access controls
Dedicated support & SLA
Onboarding assistance
Research
How AI agents fail in production.

The failure taxonomy and evaluation methodology behind AgentIQ are published openly. The methodology is research, not proprietary lock-in.

01
Taxonomy
A Production Quality Taxonomy of AI Agent Failure Modes
Seven failure types optimized for autonomous LLM-as-a-Judge detection, defined by observable signals in traces rather than code root cause.
Available now
02
Methodology
Why Continuous Autonomous Evaluation is Required for Multi-Step Agents
Point-in-time sampling systematically misses failure patterns that only emerge across thousands of interactions over time.
Coming Month 2
03
Methodology
Evaluation Dimensions Optimized for Autonomous LLM Judge Systems
Why goal alignment must be scored separately from accuracy — and what that means for production agent quality.
Coming Month 2
04
Empirical · NET NEW
Loss Patterns in Enterprise AI Agents: A Cross-Industry Analysis
The first cross-industry empirical study of how production agents actually fail, drawn from real evaluation data.
Coming Month 6–9
05
Empirical · NET NEW
The Pareto Distribution of Agent Failures by Intent Type
A small number of intent types account for the large majority of all quality failures across enterprise agents.
Coming Month 6–9
06
Causal inference · NET NEW
Measuring Business Impact of Agent RL Improvements via Causal Inference
Adapting Diff-in-Diff, Double ML, and PSM to show which agent quality improvements caused measurable business outcome changes. Quality layer generates the signal — causal inference turns it into proof.
Coming Month 9–12
07
Benchmark
State of Agent Quality: Annual Benchmark Report
Instrumented production data, not self-reported surveys — the annual industry benchmark on agent quality.
Coming Year 2
08
Multimodal · NET NEW
Cross-Modal Failure Patterns in Multimodal Enterprise Agents
Five failure types unique to multimodal agents — cross-modal hallucination, modality dropout, visual misidentification cascade, and more.
Coming Month 9–12
09
Position paper · NET NEW
Evaluating the Cognitive Layer of Physical AI
A software agent evaluation framework for the AI decision layer of humanoid robots and physical AI systems.
Coming Year 2–3
Introduction

AgentIQ evaluates every interaction at every step, in real time — not a sample, not after the fact — and tells you exactly what broke, where, and why.

The problem

Enterprise AI agents run complex multi-step workflows. Unlike traditional software, agents think and act differently in every interaction — standard quality checks aren't built for that. Eval and observability platforms exist, but they use sampled data and after-the-fact analysis. They miss failures mid-workflow, including one-off failures that could be catastrophic.

Documented incident · November 2025
Four agents in production. Two entered an infinite loop. 11 days. $47,000 in API costs. Nobody noticed. The team had monitoring — the loop never appeared in the sample.
What AgentIQ does
  • Evaluates every interaction at every step, the moment it happens
  • Gives every interaction a quality score calibrated to your industry
  • Surfaces one-off catastrophic failures immediately in the Failure Feed
  • Groups repeating failures into named patterns with plain English root cause
Next →
Quickstart