Engineering workflows / Scoping example
Evaluate on the work your engineers accept.
Choose a bounded task, keep the existing toolchain as the baseline, and measure the changes your team can review and use.
Engineering · platform · ML teams
Example process / Human review
- Define the task
- Connect the tool
- Evaluate the result
- Review before release
Keep repository writes and releases under the team’s existing review process. Confirm model access and tool compatibility before starting the pilot.
Delivery, integrations and acceptance are agreed for each engagement.
Define the work
Start with one bounded process.
One engineering task set: a code change, test generation, repository question or model behavior you want to improve.
Review inputs, outputs and owners
- Inputs
- A repository sample approved for the pilot, task definitions, tests and the tool version. For training, describe data readiness and the intended checkpoint.
- Useful output
- A proposed change or answer that can be reviewed against the task, test results and repository context.
- People and ownership
- Engineering defines acceptance and release review. Platform and security teams approve repository access and tool configuration.
Prepare with your team
Prepare a pilot brief.
Engineering workflows / Scoping example
Fill what you know. These four requirements become the starting point for your project request.
0 of 4 requirements drafted. Unanswered items are marked “To confirm” in the download.
Answers stay here while you explore the site during this visit. Refreshing clears them.
Keep this to a process description. Share documents, datasets and credentials only through an agreed evaluation environment.
Evaluation / Before rollout
Measure the result people accept.
Compare the candidate with the current tool and model on a held-out task set. Use Connect for a coding-tool pilot or Training for task-specific adaptation.
- Accepted changes
- MeasureAccepted changes / tasks evaluated
Review criteria
Use representative tasks and record rejected attempts.
- Tests and review effort
- MeasureTest outcomes and reviewer time per accepted change
Review criteria
Check behavior and maintainability alongside automated tests.
- Cost and response time
- MeasureCost per accepted result and p95 response time
Review criteria
Include all attempts, tool calls and reviewer correction.
Agree the sample, baseline, reviewers and acceptance thresholds before the pilot. These are proposed evaluation dimensions; they are not published performance results.
Scope the connections and controls.
Coding tools, repositories and evaluation sets, with compatibility confirmed during the pilot.
Confirm tool version, endpoint support, model eligibility, repository access and evaluation ownership. Connect and fine-tuning remain invitation paths; custom work is quoted.
A reference in production
Built on Grid.
Used in Forlex.
Forlex brings legal research, document review and source checks into a working product. Its LIVIA models run on Grid.
Our first vertical. Each industry needs its own integrations, controls and acceptance criteria.
Legal inputs
LIVIA on Grid
Source review