Choose your workflow
Software engineering
Choose a bounded change in a repository you understand: resolve a failing test, implement a small feature, or explain the cause of a regression. Make the acceptance test independent of the model’s explanation. A plausible patch and a verified patch are different outcomes.
Our coding evaluation guide covers task selection, tool permissions and review criteria. It is a proposed method, not a report of an Argon session.
Knowledge work
Evaluate whether an output is traceable to the source material you provided. For research, ask whether citations support the actual conclusions. For synthesis, check whether important exceptions survive compression. For drafting, compare the result against a clear brief and record the corrections needed.
Domain expertise still matters. Select reviewers who can recognize the errors that would be costly in your intended workflow, rather than judging fluency alone.
Defensive security
A useful pilot should stay inside systems you are authorized to assess and produce evidence that a reviewer can reproduce. Separate identifying an issue, validating it, suggesting a patch and deploying that patch into distinct approval steps. A credible report should say what was tested and what remains uncertain.
Make the decision measurable
- Reliability: how many tasks pass independently checked criteria?
- Review effort: how much correction is required?
- Cost and time: what does each accepted result require?
- Control: does the workflow stay within its permissions and stopping rules?
Compare those results with your existing process. This lets you decide whether the system improves your work, regardless of its headline benchmark position.
Output-heavy workflows
For documentation bundles and multi-file work, evaluate completeness and consistency across the whole deliverable. The long-output guide explains the announced ceiling and a section-by-section acceptance method.