mirror of
https://github.com/crewAIInc/crewAI.git
synced 2026-04-13 06:23:03 +00:00
71 lines
3.2 KiB
Plaintext
71 lines
3.2 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
title: Testing
|
|
description: Learn how to test your CrewAI Crew and evaluate their performance.
|
|
icon: vial
|
|
mode: "wide"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Testing is a crucial part of the development process, and it is essential to ensure that your crew is performing as expected. With crewAI, you can easily test your crew and evaluate its performance using the built-in testing capabilities.
|
|
|
|
## When to Use Testing
|
|
|
|
- Before promoting a crew to production.
|
|
- After changing prompts, tools, or model configurations.
|
|
- When benchmarking quality/cost/latency tradeoffs.
|
|
|
|
## When Not to Rely on Testing Alone
|
|
|
|
- For safety-critical deployments without human review gates.
|
|
- When test datasets are too small or unrepresentative.
|
|
|
|
### Using the Testing Feature
|
|
|
|
Use the CLI command `crewai test` to run repeated crew executions and compare outputs across iterations. The parameters are `n_iterations` and `model`, which are optional and default to `2` and `gpt-4o-mini`.
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
crewai test
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If you want to run more iterations or use a different model, you can specify the parameters like this:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
crewai test --n_iterations 5 --model gpt-4o
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
or using the short forms:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
crewai test -n 5 -m gpt-4o
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
When you run the `crewai test` command, the crew will be executed for the specified number of iterations, and the performance metrics will be displayed at the end of the run.
|
|
|
|
A table of scores at the end will show the performance of the crew in terms of the following metrics:
|
|
|
|
<center>**Tasks Scores (1-10 Higher is better)**</center>
|
|
|
|
| Tasks/Crew/Agents | Run 1 | Run 2 | Avg. Total | Agents | Additional Info |
|
|
|:------------------|:-----:|:-----:|:----------:|:------------------------------:|:---------------------------------|
|
|
| Task 1 | 9.0 | 9.5 | **9.2** | Professional Insights | |
|
|
| | | | | Researcher | |
|
|
| Task 2 | 9.0 | 10.0 | **9.5** | Company Profile Investigator | |
|
|
| Task 3 | 9.0 | 9.0 | **9.0** | Automation Insights | |
|
|
| | | | | Specialist | |
|
|
| Task 4 | 9.0 | 9.0 | **9.0** | Final Report Compiler | Automation Insights Specialist |
|
|
| Crew | 9.00 | 9.38 | **9.2** | | |
|
|
| Execution Time (s) | 126 | 145 | **135** | | |
|
|
|
|
The example above shows the test results for two runs of the crew with two tasks, with the average total score for each task and the crew as a whole.
|
|
|
|
## Common Failure Modes
|
|
|
|
### Scores fluctuate too much between runs
|
|
- Cause: high sampling randomness or unstable prompts.
|
|
- Fix: lower temperature and tighten output constraints.
|
|
|
|
### Good test scores but poor production quality
|
|
- Cause: test prompts do not match real workload.
|
|
- Fix: build a representative test set from real production inputs.
|