Agent Readiness Review
Find the gaps between a convincing demo and dependable behavior.
- Workflow and risk assessment
- Exploratory and edge-case testing
- Prioritized findings and evaluation plan

AI agent evaluation with a tester’s instinct.
We inspect the decisions, tool calls, and real-world outcomes behind a convincing answer. Find the gaps before your users do.
Start with your most important workflow. Leave with a clearer picture of risk, actionable findings, and tests your team can keep using.
Find the gaps between a convincing demo and dependable behavior.
Turn “good enough” into explicit criteria and repeatable checks.
Keep quality visible as prompts, models, tools, and customer needs change.
Every engagement is scoped to your workflows, integrations, and risk. Your team retains its evaluation datasets, rubrics, and test code.
An agent can sound right and still do the wrong thing. Explore three illustrative findings from a customer-support workflow.
Good evaluation starts with a better question: what must this agent do, what must it never do, and how will we know?
We combine software QA discipline with checks designed for systems whose behavior can vary from one run to the next.
Map requirements, permissions, business outcomes, and the failures that matter most.
Exercise realistic tasks, ambiguous inputs, adversarial requests, and unavailable tools.
Combine code-based checks, calibrated AI grading, and human review. Repeat trials to understand variability.
Document evidence, prioritize fixes, and preserve regression tests for the next release.
TurboDuck brings that experience to AI agents: questioning assumptions, investigating edge cases, and connecting a failure to its impact. Our focus is practical evaluation that helps engineering and product teams make informed release decisions.
Our initial focus is customer-support and operational agents that use tools or take actions across business systems. We scope each engagement around a specific workflow and its expected outcomes.
No. We can help define your initial scenarios and checks, or work with the evaluation infrastructure your team already uses. Tool selection follows the workflow and your constraints.
We use repeated trials, explicit scoring criteria, and human calibration where judgment is involved. Reports distinguish observed failures from broader claims and explain the limits of the evidence.
Before access is granted, we agree on the testing environment, data boundaries, retention, and approved tools. Your team retains the evaluation datasets, rubrics, and test code produced for your engagement.
An evaluation provides evidence within a defined scope. It cannot prove that every future interaction will succeed. Findings should inform release decisions alongside monitoring, operational controls, and human oversight.
Start with one workflow, your biggest concern, and what a successful outcome should look like.