Human at the Center: Building Reliable AI Agents with Your Feedback
📚 AI Agent Evaluation Series - Part 2 of 5
- Observability & Evals: Why They Matter ←
- Human-in-the-Loop Evaluation ← You are here
- Implementing Automated Evals →
- Debugging AI Agents →
- Human Review Training Guide →
Human at the Center: Building Reliable AI Agents with Your Feedback
You're not training your replacement—you're scaling your judgment.
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) means experts stay in the driver's seat. The agent proposes; you decide what "good" looks like. Over time, your feedback turns sporadic wins into consistent performance.
🎥 Watch the Full Workshop
📊 View the Presentation
What "Human-in-the-Loop" Actually Means
If you've ever trained a new team member, you already understand HITL. The loop is simple:
- Agent answers (using available context)
- You review (quality, accuracy, completeness)
- You leave a short score & comment
- System improves (prompts, data, or model config are adjusted; future responses get better)
When you run this at scale, you get predictable, trustworthy AI—without removing human judgment.
Think of HITL like quality control in manufacturing. You wouldn't ship products without checking them first. AI agents are the same—except your feedback teaches them to get better over time.
Want to build a human-in-the-loop system for your AI agents? Let's discuss your quality workflow →
Why Observability + Evaluations Matter
Understanding the difference between observability and evaluations is crucial:
Observability shows what happened:
- Traces of agent interactions
- Tools the agent used
- Prompts sent and received
- Outputs generated
- Costs incurred
- Response times
Think of observability as your security camera footage—it shows you exactly what occurred, step by step.
Evaluations tell you how well it happened:
- Quality scores (LLM-as-Judge)
- Human annotations on correctness
- Custom metrics for your use case
- Performance trends over time
Evaluations are your quality report card—they measure whether what happened was actually good.
Observability without evaluations tells you what your agent did, but not whether it did it well. Evaluations without observability give you scores, but no way to understand why. You need both.
This is where Langfuse comes in—it captures every interaction, enables scoring (automated and human), routes edge cases to expert reviewers, and tracks improvements in real-time dashboards.
Learn more: Langfuse Documentation →
Need help setting up observability and evaluations for your team? Schedule a consultation →
The Reviewer's Job: 1–2 Minutes Per Item
Your role as a domain expert isn't to understand how AI works—it's to judge outputs the same way you'd review a colleague's work.
Your Five-Point Checklist
- Correct? Facts match known or provided source(s)
- Grounded? Claims are supported by the given context
- Relevant & complete? It actually answers the question, with key details
- Clear & well-formatted? Easy to read; required format followed
- Links or references OK? (If present) They point to the right place
Aim for 60–120 seconds per review: Score → 1-sentence comment → Complete + Next.
Your reviews create high-quality labels that feed into datasets and experiments, enabling systematic improvement over time.
Building a reviewer team? Get training resources and workflow templates →
Where Your Feedback Lives (And Why It Compounds)
Here's the magic: your reviews don't just fix one response. They improve the entire system.
1. LLM-as-Judge: Automated Baseline Scoring
AI models can score other AI outputs at scale:
- Accuracy: Does the answer match the facts?
- Groundedness: Are claims supported by sources?
- Structure: Does it follow the required format?
- Completeness: Are all key points covered?
LLM-as-Judge gives you scalable quality checks, but it needs your labels to calibrate correctly.
2. Human Annotation Queues: Your Expert Judgment
When the system encounters:
- Low confidence outputs
- New types of questions
- Edge cases
- Policy-sensitive topics
...it routes them to you. Your authoritative labels become the gold standard.
3. Datasets & Experiments: Preventing Backslides
Your labeled reviews become test cases. Before any change ships, it's tested against your curated dataset of edge cases. This prevents regressions and ensures quality never backslides.
Example workflow:
- You identify 50 tricky customer questions
- You label them with expected quality
- Engineers make improvements
- New version is tested against your 50 cases
- Only ships if it passes your quality bar
Understand Datasets → | Experiments →
4. Custom Dashboards: The Quality-Speed-Cost Triangle
Leaders track three metrics:
- Accuracy: Quality scores trending up
- Speed: Response latency staying low
- Cost: Token usage and API costs under control
Your feedback directly impacts the accuracy line on these dashboards.
Want to see how your feedback creates compounding improvements? Let's walk through the system →
Rubrics You'll Use (And When to Use Them)
Different questions need different scoring approaches. Here are the three main types:
1. Overall Quality (1–5 Scale)
When to use: You need a quick holistic judgment.
What it measures: Correct, grounded, complete, and clear.
The scale:
- 5 = Correct, grounded, complete, clear
- 4 = Correct with a small nit
- 3 = Partially correct or missing an important detail
- 2 = Largely incorrect or off-topic
- 1 = Unusable or misleading
Why it matters: Gives you trendlines and release confidence. You can quickly see if a change improves perceived quality.
Often paired with a binary correctness flag for precision tracking. A response can be "mostly good" (4/5) but still factually incorrect (False).
2. Binary True/False (Correct / Incorrect)
When to use: Factual correctness is the primary goal (product specs, legal advice, pricing, policy).
What it measures: Is this right or wrong? No middle ground.
Why it matters: Powers precision dashboards and workflow gates. If incorrect, auto-route to human for revision.
Best practice: Combine with a short comment: "Incorrect: claims X; source shows Y."
3. Categorical Labels (Root Cause Analysis)
When to use: You want to know why it failed to triage fixes.
Common categories:
- Missing Context → Improve retrieval / add sources
- Format Issue → Tighten prompt specification
- Safety Concern → Escalate to policy owner
- Off-Topic → Adjust routing logic
- Hallucination → Review grounding requirements
Why it matters: These tags route fixes to the right team and help prioritize improvements.
Need help designing effective rubrics for your use case? Get customized templates →
Comment Templates (Copy/Paste Ready)
Specific, actionable feedback beats lengthy explanations. Here are templates you can use:
- "Correct but missing": add [detail].
- "Not grounded": claims [X]; source shows [Y].
- "Off-topic": doesn't answer [original question].
- "Formatting issue": expected [JSON/list/links], received [format].
- "Safety/compliance": [brief reason].
One sentence is enough. Specific beats long. Your goal is to help the system learn, not write an essay.
Want copy/paste templates customized for your domain? We can help →
Quick Start: Reviewing in Langfuse (For Subject Matter Experts)
You don't need to understand AI to be an effective reviewer. Here's your simple workflow:
- Open your queue: Human Annotation → Your Queue → Process
- Read the item: See the question, the agent's answer, and any references/context
- Score it: Use the rubric chosen for this queue (Overall 1–5, Correct/Incorrect, or both)
- Comment (1 sentence): What to add/fix—or note "missing context: should include [X]"
- Complete + Next: Move to the next item
- (Optional) Flag safety or policy issues when applicable
Open the trace to see exactly what happened step-by-step, or the session to replay a multi-turn conversation.
Ready to onboard your review team? Get a personalized walkthrough →
Behind the Scenes: How Your Feedback Is Used
Here's what happens with your reviews:
Immediate impact:
- Low confidence outputs are scored by LLM-as-Judge and sent to human reviewers
- Your labels provide authoritative ground truth
Medium-term impact:
- Your labels become dataset items for regression testing
- Engineers run experiments to benchmark new versions before they ship
Long-term impact:
- Teams track accuracy, speed, and cost on dashboards
- Product decisions are informed by quality trends you influence
You're not just fixing individual responses—you're shaping the agent's entire knowledge and behavior over time.
Curious how your reviews translate to system improvements? Let's explore the feedback pipeline →
The Bigger Picture: Why This Approach Works
Traditional software has deterministic behavior: input X always produces output Y. You test it once, and it stays fixed.
AI is different. The same question can produce different answers depending on:
- How the question is phrased
- What context is available
- Which model version is running
- Random temperature settings
This makes traditional testing insufficient. You need continuous evaluation with human expertise in the loop.
The Feedback Flywheel
Better Labels → Better Datasets → Better Experiments
↓ ↑
Improved Agents ← Shipped Confidently ← Quality Validated
Each cycle of feedback makes the next one more effective. Your judgment becomes the foundation for systematic, measurable improvement.
Ready to create your feedback flywheel? Schedule a strategy session →
Frequently Asked Questions
What is HITL in one sentence?
Humans review and guide AI outputs so quality matches your standards—consistently.
Why do we need human review if we use LLM-as-Judge?
Judges scale, humans set the standard; both together work best. LLM-as-Judge can evaluate thousands of responses per hour, but it needs your expert labels to know what "good" looks like. You define quality, the judge enforces it at scale.
How long should a review take?
About 1–2 minutes per item. If it's taking longer, the question might be too complex or the rubric unclear. Flag it for clarification rather than spending 10 minutes deliberating.
What if I'm unsure about a score?
Pick the closest score and leave a one-line note explaining your uncertainty. For example: "Leaning 3/5—answer seems right but source is ambiguous." Your uncertainty is valuable signal.
When should I mark "Incorrect"?
Any factual error, hallucinated feature, wrong link, or unsafe advice. Even if 90% is right, if there's a critical factual error, mark it incorrect and note the specific issue.
What's "groundedness"?
The answer is supported by provided sources; no unsupported claims. For example, if the context says "Product X costs $50" and the agent says "Product X costs $50-60," that's not grounded—the range isn't in the source.
What if there's no reference source?
Use domain judgment; state your assumption briefly. For example: "Marking correct based on current pricing—no source provided, but matches website." This helps engineers know when to add sources.
What do category tags do?
They route fixes: data issues vs formatting vs safety. Missing Context goes to the data team, Format Issue goes to prompt engineers, Safety Concern escalates to compliance. Tags create accountability and prioritization.
Can I see the whole conversation?
Yes—open the session to replay a multi-turn interaction. This is especially useful for chat-based agents where context from earlier messages matters. You'll see every user message and agent response in order.
How is my feedback used later?
It becomes labeled data for datasets/experiments and improves prompts/tools. Your "Incorrect" labels with comments like "claims feature X doesn't exist; it does" directly inform prompt revisions that fix those errors system-wide.
What if reviews disagree?
That's useful signal; alignment improves by clarifying rubrics and examples. When two experts disagree, it usually means the rubric needs more specificity or the question is genuinely ambiguous. Both are valuable insights.
Should I write long comments?
No—one sentence that's specific and actionable is best. Compare:
- ❌ "This answer doesn't really capture the full complexity of the situation and misses some nuance."
- ✅ "Missing: explain the 30-day trial period."
The second is instantly actionable.
What if the format is wrong but the facts are right?
Score accordingly (e.g., 3/5) and tag Format issue. This separates "knows the right answer" from "presents it correctly." Both matter, but they're different problems requiring different fixes.
Can I flag compliance/safety issues?
Yes—use the safety tag and add a short reason. Examples: "Contains PII (customer name)", "Recommends unapproved medical treatment", "Links to competitor site." Safety tags trigger immediate review.
Why not just "fix the prompt"?
Without labels, you can't measure progress or prevent regressions. Changing the prompt might fix one case and break three others. Your labels create the test suite that ensures improvements actually improve things.
What is a dataset in this context?
A labeled set of inputs (and sometimes expected outputs) used to test/compare agents before release. Think of it as your quality checklist: these 100 questions must be answered correctly before we ship. Your reviews build this checklist.
How do experiments help?
They benchmark versions against the same dataset so you can ship with confidence. For example: "Version A scores 78% correct on your dataset, Version B scores 85%." Engineers can confidently ship B knowing it's measurably better.
What metrics should leaders watch?
Accuracy/quality scores, P95 latency, and token/cost—your quality-speed-cost triangle. If accuracy goes up but speed drops 10x, that might not be worth it. Leaders balance these three dimensions based on business priorities.
Do I need to understand how the model works?
No—just judge the output like you would a trainee's work. You don't need to know how the neural network processes tokens. You need to know if the answer is right, complete, and useful. That's your expertise.
What if the answer is "mostly right"?
Give a 3–4/5, note the missing piece or formatting fix. "Mostly right" is valuable feedback. It tells engineers the agent has the concept but needs refinement. Much better than binary right/wrong.
Can we automate everything and skip humans later?
No—edge cases and policy changes will always need human judgment. As your agent gets better, you'll spend less time on routine reviews and more time on genuinely novel or complex cases. But the human element never fully disappears.
Is this replacing my job?
No—HITL scales your expertise so you spend time on higher-value work. Instead of answering the same question 100 times, you review the agent's answer once, and it handles the next 99. You shift from doing repetitive work to quality control and edge case handling.
Who sets the rubric?
Product/ops define it; SMEs refine it with examples and common pitfalls. Initial rubrics are often too vague ("Is it good?"). Through practice, you'll add specificity: "Good means includes X, Y, Z and avoids A, B, C."
What happens if quality drops after a change?
Experiments catch regressions before rollout; dashboards highlight trends. If quality drops from 85% to 78% after a change, the experiment blocks the release. Dashboards show the trend so you investigate before users are impacted.
Where do I start today?
Open your annotation queue, review five items, and use the templates above. Five reviews will teach you more than reading any documentation. Start small, learn the rhythm, then scale up.
Ready to Build Reliable AI Agents?
Human-at-the-center isn't a slogan—it's the only proven way to make AI reliable in the real world. Your feedback is the compass. The system handles the maps.
What You've Learned
- HITL is a feedback loop: Agent proposes → You review → System improves → Repeat
- Observability + Evaluations work together: See what happened + measure how well it happened
- Your reviews compound: Labels become datasets, datasets enable experiments, experiments build confidence
- Three rubric types cover different needs: Overall quality, binary correctness, categorical root cause
- 1-2 minute reviews at scale create systematic improvement
Next Steps
🎯 Want to see this in action?
Schedule a free AI assessment and demo →
We'll walk through:
- How HITL works with your specific use cases
- Setting up observability for your agents
- Creating effective evaluation rubrics
- Building your annotation workflow
📚 Explore the series:
- How to Debug AI Agents with Langfuse (coming soon)
- How to Set Up Evaluations: LLM-as-Judge, Human Review, Datasets (coming soon)
- What to Look For in Human Reviews (coming soon)
- Observability vs Evaluations—What's the Difference? (coming soon)
Useful Resources
Langfuse Documentation:
- Langfuse Overview
- Traces & Sessions
- Evaluations Overview
- Human Annotation
- LLM-as-Judge
- Datasets
- Experiments
- Dashboards
TheAnswer Resources:
Building reliable AI isn't about perfect models—it's about perfect feedback loops. Start building yours today.