LLM Evals for Revenue Agents (2026): How to Measure Quality, Not Activity
In 2026, the best GTM teams don’t “use AI.” They run revenue agents in production.
That creates a new problem: if an agent makes 10,000 decisions a week, you can’t QA it like a human rep.
You need evals: systematic ways to measure agent quality, detect regressions, and decide when to increase autonomy.
This is the practical eval stack for GTM.
Why activity metrics are misleading #
Most teams start by measuring:
- number of accounts researched
- number of fields filled
- number of emails drafted
Those metrics are easy to inflate and weakly correlated with revenue outcomes.
What matters is decision quality: correct enrichment, correct routing, correct next-best-actions.
If you can’t measure correctness, you’re not automating — you’re gambling.
The four eval types every revenue team needs #
- Offline evals (test sets)
- Online evals (shadow mode + canaries)
- Outcome evals (business impact)
- Safety evals (risk and policy compliance)
1) Offline evals: your GTM “unit tests”
Offline evals are fast checks you can run before deployment.
For revenue agents, build eval sets for each workflow type:
- Enrichment: ground truth titles, industries, company size, tech stack
- Routing: historical routing decisions + outcomes
- Research briefs: rubric-based scoring (accuracy, relevance, completeness)
- Outreach drafts: rubric-based scoring (clarity, personalization, compliance)
Tip: Start small. 50–200 examples per workflow is enough to catch big regressions.
2) Online evals: shadow mode → canary → rollout
Offline evals won’t catch everything. Real data is messy.
Use a rollout pipeline:
- Shadow mode: agent runs, but does not write/send. Compare decisions to humans.
- Canary: agent gets write permission for 1–5% of traffic or one segment.
- Segment rollout: expand by tier, region, or persona.
The key is segment-level monitoring. An agent can be great for SMB and terrible for enterprise.
3) Outcome evals: tie quality to business metrics
Outcome evals answer: did this agent improve the GTM engine?
Common outcome metrics by workflow:
- Enrichment agent: fewer bounced emails, fewer duplicates, higher connect rate
- Routing agent: faster speed-to-lead, higher meeting-to-opportunity conversion
- Research agent: higher reply rates, shorter prep time, better discovery
- Pipeline agent: earlier risk detection, higher win rate on flagged deals
Where possible, run A/B tests by segment.
4) Safety evals: enforce policy and reduce blast radius
Safety evals are not “security theater.” They prevent production incidents.
What to test:
- Policy compliance: did the agent violate routing rules or enrichment rules?
- PII handling: does the agent store or expose sensitive data?
- Action boundaries: does it attempt forbidden writes?
- Tone/compliance (outreach): does it make claims you can’t substantiate?
Practical scoring: what “good” looks like #
Enrichment
- Field accuracy (precision): correct values / filled values
- Coverage (recall): filled values / missing values
- Citation rate: percent of fields with evidence links
Routing
- True positives: routed accounts that convert to meaningful next stage
- False positives: routed accounts that waste rep capacity
- Time-to-action: speed of handoff when readiness spikes
Research briefs
Use a simple rubric (1–5) for:
- accuracy
- relevance to ICP and motion
- actionability
Outreach drafts
Score for:
- clarity (no fluff)
- specificity (real personalization, not token replacement)
- compliance (no unverified claims)
Regression detection: the “agent release checklist” #
Before you ship a change (prompt/tooling/workflow), require:
- Offline eval score above a threshold
- No regressions in key segments
- Canary metrics stable for 7–14 days
- Safety evals passing (policy + action boundaries)
Then ship.
Where Cargo fits #
Cargo is built for workflows where AI decisions turn into actions.
In practice, that means:
- Run agents in shadow mode, then gate autonomy with approvals.
- Centralize your policy checks in the workflow layer.
- Track quality by segment (not just global averages).
If your agents affect pipeline, evals become part of RevOps.
Key Takeaways #
- Activity ≠ quality: “accounts processed” is not a success metric for agents that make decisions
- You need four eval types: offline, online, outcome, and safety evals
- Roll out like software: shadow mode → canary → segment rollout prevents disasters
- Measure by workflow and segment: an agent’s accuracy varies by tier, geo, persona, and data availability
- Evals are the foundation for autonomy: without them, approvals are arbitrary and risk is unbounded