Omni Eval

Run evals against Omni's AI query generation APIs — submit test prompts, capture the generated query JSON, compare it against expected results, and score accuracy across dimensions.

Tip: Use omni-ai-optimizer to improve scores after identifying failures, and omni-model-explorer to discover available topics and fields for building eval cases.

Prerequisites

# Verify the Omni CLI is installed — if not, ask the user to install it
# See: https://github.com/exploreomni/cli#readme
command -v omni >/dev/null || echo "ERROR: Omni CLI is not installed."

# Show available profiles and select the appropriate one
omni config show
# If multiple profiles exist, ask the user which to use, then switch:
omni config use <profile-name>

You also need a model ID and an eval set — a file of test cases with prompts and expected query structures. See the Eval Design Guide for best practices on building eval sets.

Discovering Commands

omni ai --help    # AI operations (generate-query, jobs, pick-topic)

Tip: Use -o json to force structured output for programmatic parsing, or -o human for readable tables. The default is auto (human in a TTY, JSON when piped).

Eval Input Format

Each eval case pairs a natural language prompt with the expected query structure. JSONL (one JSON object per line) works well for bulk runs:

{"id": "rev-by-month", "prompt": "Show me revenue by month", "modelId": "your-model-id", "expected": {"topic": "order_items", "fields": ["order_items.created_at[month]", "order_items.total_revenue"], "filters": {}, "sorts": [{"column_name": "order_items.created_at[month]", "sort_descending": false}]}, "tags": ["time-series"]}
{"id": "top-customers", "prompt": "Top 10 customers by spend", "modelId": "your-model-id", "expected": {"topic": "order_items", "fields": ["users.name", "order_items.total_revenue"], "filters": {}, "sorts": [{"column_name": "order_items.total_revenue", "sort_descending": true}]}, "tags": ["top-n"]}

Field	Required	Description
id	Yes	Unique identifier for the eval case
prompt	Yes	Natural language question to send to AI
modelId	Yes	Target model UUID
expected	Yes	Object with topic, fields, filters, sorts
branchId	No	Branch to test against
currentTopicName	No	Constrain to a specific topic
tags	No	Array of tags for filtering/grouping results

Note: JSONL is shown here, but any structured format works — CSV, JSON arrays, YAML — as long as you can iterate over cases and extract these fields.

Running Evals: Fast Path (Generate Query API)

The synchronous generate-query endpoint is the fastest way to eval query generation. Pass --run-query false to get only the generated query JSON without executing it against the database.

Single Eval Call

omni ai generate-query your-model-id "Show me revenue by month" --run-query false

Response Structure

{
  "query": {
    "fields": ["order_items.created_at[month]", "order_items.total_revenue"],
    "table": "order_items",
    "filters": {},
    "sorts": [{"column_name": "order_items.created_at[month]", "sort_descending": false}],
    "limit": 500
  },
  "topic": "order_items",
  "error": null
}

Request Parameters

Arg/Flag	Required	Description
<model-id>	Yes	UUID of the Omni model (positional arg)
<prompt>	Yes	Natural language question (positional arg)
--run-query	No	Set false to skip query execution (faster, default true)
--branch-id	No	Branch UUID for branch-specific testing
--current-topic-name	No	Constrain topic selection to a specific topic

Batch Loop (bash)

while IFS= read -r line; do
  id=$(echo "$line" | jq -r '.id')
  prompt=$(echo "$line" | jq -r '.prompt')
  model_id=$(echo "$line" | jq -r '.modelId')
  branch_id=$(echo "$line" | jq -r '.branchId // empty')

  branch_flag=""
  if [ -n "$branch_id" ]; then
    branch_flag="--branch-id $branch_id"
  fi

  result=$(omni ai generate-query "$model_id" "$prompt" --run-query false $branch_flag --compact)

  echo "{\"id\": \"$id\", \"generated\": $result}" >> eval_results.jsonl
done < eval_cases.jsonl

Running Evals: Agentic Path (AI Jobs API)

Use the async AI Jobs API when you want to test the full agentic workflow — multi-step analysis, tool use, and topic selection as Blobby would actually behave in production.

Submit a Job

omni ai job-submit your-model-id "Show me revenue by month"

Response:

{
  "jobId": "job-uuid",
  "conversationId": "conv-uuid",
  "omniChatUrl": "https://yourorg.omniapp.co/chat/..."
}

Poll for Completion

omni ai job-status <jobId>

Status progression: QUEUED → EXECUTING → COMPLETE (or FAILED). Poll with backoff (e.g., 2s, 4s, 8s) until the state is terminal.

Get Result

omni ai job-result <jobId>

The result contains an actions array. Look for actions with type: "generate_query" to extract the query JSON:

{
  "actions": [
    {
      "type": "generate_query",
      "message": "Querying revenue by month...",
      "result": {
        "queryName": "Revenue by Month",
        "query": { "fields": [...], "table": "...", "filters": {...} },
        "status": "success",
        "totalRowCount": 12
      }
    }
  ],
  "topic": "order_items",
  "resultSummary": "Here are the monthly revenue figures..."
}

When to Use Which Path

Criterion	Generate Query (Fast)	AI Jobs (Agentic)
Speed	Synchronous, fast	Async, slower
Volume	High-volume runs	Lower volume
Scope	Query generation only	Full agent workflow
Use case	Field/filter accuracy	End-to-end behavior
Multi-step	Single query	May generate multiple queries

Testing Topic Selection

Eval topic selection independently with the pick-topic endpoint:

omni ai pick-topic your-model-id "How many users signed up last month?"

Response:

{
  "topicId": "users"
}

This lets you score topic selection accuracy as a separate dimension — useful when topic selection is a known weak point.

Scoring: Structural Query Comparison

Compare the generated query JSON against the expected query across four dimensions:

Dimension	Comparison Method	Scoring
topic	Exact string match	pass/fail
fields	Set comparison (order-independent)	pass/fail + similarity score
filters	Key-value match (key present + value match)	pass/fail per filter key
sorts	Ordered array comparison	pass/fail

Example Comparison Logic (TypeScript)

function scoreEval(expected: any, generated: any) {
  // Topic: exact match
  const topicPass = generated.topic === expected.topic;

  // Fields: set comparison (order-independent)
  const expectedFields = new Set(expected.fields);
  const generatedFields = new Set(generated.query.fields);
  const missing = [...expectedFields].filter(f => !generatedFields.has(f));
  const extra = [...generatedFields].filter(f => !expectedFields.has(f));
  const fieldsPass = missing.length === 0 && extra.length === 0;

  // Filters: key-value match
  const expectedFilters = expected.filters || {};
  const generatedFilters = generated.query.filters || {};
  const missingKeys = Object.keys(expectedFilters).filter(k => !(k in generatedFilters));
  const wrongValues = Object.keys(expectedFilters)
    .filter(k => k in generatedFilters && generatedFilters[k] !== expectedFilters[k]);
  const filtersPass = missingKeys.length === 0 && wrongValues.length === 0;

  // Sorts: ordered comparison
  const sortsPass = JSON.stringify(expected.sorts || []) ===
    JSON.stringify(generated.query.sorts || []);

  return {
    topic: topicPass,
    fields: { pass: fieldsPass, missing, extra },
    filters: { pass: filtersPass, missingKeys, wrongValues },
    sorts: sortsPass,
    allPass: topicPass && fieldsPass && filtersPass && sortsPass,
  };
}

Aggregate Scoring

Compute pass rates across all eval cases:

Eval Results: 47/50 passed (94.0%)
  Topic:   49/50 (98.0%)
  Fields:  47/50 (94.0%)
  Filters: 48/50 (96.0%)
  Sorts:   50/50 (100.0%)

Per-dimension rates help pinpoint where accuracy is weakest — if topic accuracy is high but filter accuracy is low, focus ai_context improvements on filter-related guidance.

A/B Comparison

Run the same eval suite with one variable changed to measure impact. This is the core workflow for understanding whether a change improves or degrades AI accuracy.

Common Variables to Compare

• Model branches — pass different --branch-id values to test context changes on a branch before merging
• Topic scope — --current-topic-name "orders" vs omitted (auto-select)
• Model context changes — ai_context, sample_queries, field descriptions (apply via omni-model-builder on a branch, then eval against that branch)
• Prompt wording — same expected query, different prompt text
• AI configuration — model type, thinking level, or other AI parameters

Workflow

1. Run eval suite with configuration A → save as results_a.jsonl
2. Run eval suite with configuration B → save as results_b.jsonl
3. Score both result sets
4. Compare side-by-side, checking for regressions

Example Comparison Output

A/B Comparison: main vs branch/new-context
                      A (main)    B (new-context)    Delta
Overall pass rate:    88.0%       94.0%              +6.0%
Topic accuracy:       96.0%       98.0%              +2.0%
Field accuracy:       90.0%       94.0%              +4.0%
Filter accuracy:      88.0%       96.0%              +8.0%

Regressions (passed in A, failed in B):
  - rev-by-quarter: fields missing order_items.total_revenue

Improvements (failed in A, passed in B):
  - customer-count: topic now correctly selects users
  - top-products: filters now include status=complete

Important: Always check for regressions, not just overall improvement. A net improvement that breaks previously-correct cases may indicate an ai_context conflict.

Snapshotting Model State

Before running evals, snapshot the model definition so results are reproducible:

# Save model YAML
omni models yaml-get <modelId> --compact > model_snapshot_$(date +%Y%m%d).json

# Validate model integrity
omni models validate <modelId>

Version your eval set alongside model snapshots so you can trace which model state produced which scores.

Known Issues & Gotchas

• Filter comparison can be complex — Omni supports rich filter expressions ("last 7 days", "between 10 and 100", "not null"). The structural comparison above uses exact string match on filter values. If the AI produces semantically equivalent but syntactically different expressions, you may see false failures. Consider normalizing common patterns or using a Jaccard threshold.
• AI Jobs are async — poll with exponential backoff. Don't hammer the status endpoint.
• Rate limiting — for high-volume eval runs, add a small delay between calls or batch requests.
• limit field may vary — the AI may choose different limits than expected. Consider excluding limit from strict comparison if it's not critical to your eval.
• table vs topic — the generate-query response returns topic as a top-level field and table inside the query object. These usually match but aren't always identical. Compare against the top-level topic.

Docs Reference

• AI API · Query API · Models API · Optimizing Models for AI

Related Skills

• omni-query — run golden queries to validate expected results
• omni-model-explorer — discover topics and fields for building eval cases
• omni-ai-optimizer — improve AI accuracy based on eval findings
• omni-model-builder — apply context changes on branches before A/B testing