<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Metrics on Fondsites</title><link>https://fondsites.com/tags/metrics/</link><description>Recent content in Metrics on Fondsites</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 13:43:57 +0300</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://fondsites.com/tags/metrics/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>AI Agent Operating Metrics: Measuring Delegation After Launch</title><link>https://fondsites.com/ai-agents/guidebooks/agent-operating-metrics/</link><pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://fondsites.com/ai-agents/guidebooks/agent-operating-metrics/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;An AI agent can pass a demo, survive an evaluation, and still disappoint after launch. The problem is often not a single dramatic failure. It is quieter. Review takes too long. Escalations pile up. The agent completes easy tasks and stalls on the valuable ones. Costs drift upward. Users stop trusting summaries. A workflow that looked efficient in isolation becomes one more queue for people to manage.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Operating metrics exist because deployed agents are not only models. They are work systems. They have intake, context, tools, permissions, retries, human review, artifacts, incidents, and maintenance. Measuring only final answer quality misses the way delegated work actually succeeds or fails. The useful question is not simply &amp;ldquo;is the agent good?&amp;rdquo; It is &amp;ldquo;is this workflow producing trusted work at an acceptable cost, with a manageable review burden and a visible failure pattern?&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>