Clear, owned outputs.
- Model benchmark report
- Prompt library and tests
- Fine-tuned models (where justified)
- Deployment and routing configuration
- Monitoring and evaluation dashboards
Large language models differ in quality, cost, speed, context length and how they handle data. Choosing and configuring the right model for each task makes a large difference to results. We benchmark models on your tasks, design prompts and pipelines, fine-tune where it helps and deploy with monitoring and cost control.
Model selection, prompting, fine-tuning, private deployment and LLMOps.
One expensive model is used for every task.
Prompts are fragile and break with small changes.
Latency is too high for a good user experience.
Data requirements rule out some hosted models.
Comparing models on your tasks for quality, cost and speed.
Structured, tested prompts with version control.
Adapting models to your style, format or domain where useful.
Deploying open-weight models in your environment.
Routing, caching and smaller models for simpler tasks.
Evaluation pipelines, monitoring, logging and safe updates.
LLMs fail in ways traditional software doesn't. Each release is checked against an evaluation set built from real tasks.
| What we check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Model choice | Quality, latency, cost per request and data-handling terms compared across providers and open models. |
| Accuracy | Answers scored against reference answers and reviewed by subject experts for the cases that matter most. |
| Hallucination | Whether the model states things that aren't supported by its sources, and how often. |
| Safety | Prompt injection, harmful output and leakage of confidential data, tested deliberately. |
| Cost and latency | Token usage, caching and model routing so the system stays affordable at real volumes. |
The right model for each task.
Routing and optimization reduce spend.
Tested prompts and monitoring prevent regressions.
The task, users, content sources, risks and how success will be judged.
A working prototype on real examples, reviewed by the people who will use it.
Test sets for accuracy, safety and edge cases, with human review.
Security, permissions, guardrails, logging and cost controls.
Phased rollout, feedback loops and regular evaluation.
Only when prompting and retrieval aren't enough — for example to enforce a format or style consistently. Fine-tuning adds cost and maintenance, so we test simpler options first.
Yes, with open-weight models and suitable GPU infrastructure. We compare quality and total cost against hosted options.
With task-specific test sets, automated checks and human review, run before launch and whenever prompts or models change.
Tell us which decision or process you want to improve and what data you have. We'll reply with whether it's a good fit and how we would test it.