Start with a decision
A useful evaluation begins with a specific choice: compare two model versions, understand the quality of review comments, or find where generated changes miss the requirement. Tell us which decision your team needs to make and who will use the findings.
The first conversation is with Mayur. He will reply to your enquiry within 1 business day, Monday–Friday. Delivery dates, reviewer availability, and fees are confirmed after scoping.
What to bring
Please send only a short description in the enquiry form. We agree the handling of private artifacts before receiving them.
- One evaluation question and your intended use of the results.
- A small, representative sample of prompts, responses, code, or diffs that you have permission to share.
- The requirements, constraints, and relevant context reviewers need.
- Your deadline, budget range, and data-access restrictions.
What we agree before work starts
| Scope item | What the brief specifies |
|---|---|
| Sample | Artifact count, size, languages, selection method, and exclusions |
| Review | Criteria, score anchors, reviewer expertise, independence, and review depth |
| Disagreement | What gets escalated, who adjudicates, and the included allowance |
| Output | Item-level reasons, evidence references, summary, and agreed CSV or JSONL fields |
| Delivery | Named owner, capacity, milestones, revisions, and acceptance conditions |
| Commercial terms | Fees, payment milestones, changes, and any separately priced work |
Evidence your team can use
The proposed pilot output connects each judgment to an artifact, a criterion, and a reason. The summary should explain recurring failure patterns, differences between variants, and the limitations of the sample. A walkthrough helps your team decide what to investigate next.
The worked example in our evaluation guides shows a possible report structure using original synthetic code. It is an AI-assisted illustration, not a client case study or a completed independent human-review program.
The current boundary
The initial service reviews supplied artifacts and evidence. Hosted execution of client code is outside the current product scope. If a conclusion depends on runtime behavior, we agree what execution evidence the client will supply and mark missing evidence explicitly.
An evaluation supports a decision; it does not certify software as secure or defect-free. CodeBench remains a research preview. We do not publish a fixed pilot price or turnaround before checking the actual delivery requirements.