惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

雷峰网
雷峰网
GbyAI
GbyAI
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
The Cloudflare Blog
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
让小产品的独立变现更简单 - ezindie.com
F
Fortinet All Blogs
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
博客园 - 聂微东
L
LangChain Blog
云风的 BLOG
云风的 BLOG
Jina AI
Jina AI
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
I
InfoQ
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
MyScale Blog
MyScale Blog
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
小众软件
小众软件
量子位
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】

DEV Community

Authentication Security Deep Dive: From Brute Force to Salted Hashing (With Java Examples) Why AI Systems Don’t Fail — They Drift Spilling beans for how i learn for exam😁"Reinforcement Learning Cheat Sheet" I Replaced Chrome with Safari for AI Browser Automation. Here's What Broke (and What Finally Worked) How Python Borrows Other People's Work The $40 Architecture: Processing 1 Billion API Requests with 99.99% Uptime Vibe Coding: A Workflow Guide (From Zero to SaaS) Most webhook security guides protect the wrong side. The scary part is delivery. Headless CMS for TanStack Start: Build a Blog with Cosmic EU Age Verification App "Hacked in 2 Minutes" — What Actually Happened Comfy Cloud’s delete function does not actually remove files Running AI Models on GPU Cloud Servers: A Beginner Guide Event-driven media intelligence with AWS Step Functions and Bedrock I scored 500 AI prompts across 8 quality dimensions — here's what broke How to Call Google Gemini API from Next.js (Free Tier, No Backend Needed) The Portal Protocol: Reclaiming Human Connection in the Age of AI How to Fix Your Team's Scattered Knowledge Problem With a Self-Hosted Forum Intro to tc Cloud Functors: A Graph-First Mental Model for the Modern Cloud Designing Multi-Tenant Backends With Both Ownership and Team Access I Built a Neumorphic CSS Library with 77+ Components — Here's What I Learned PostgreSQL Performance Optimization: Why Connection Pooling Is Critical at Scale Cómo construí un SaaS multi-rubro para gestionar expensas en Argentina con FastAPI + Vue 3 🚀 I Built an Ethical Hacking Scanner Tool – Open Source Project I Replaced /usage and /context in Claude Code With a Single Statusline A Pythonic Way to Handle Emails (IMAP/SMTP) with Auto-Discovery and AI-Ready Design I Collected 8.9 Million Polymarket Price Points — Here's What I Found About How Markets Really Move EcoTrack AI — Carbon Footprint Tracker & Dashboard Everyone's Using AI. No One Agrees How. 5 self-hosted ebook managers worth trying in 2026 Building Your First AI Agent with LangChain: From Chatbot to Autonomous Assistant
How RAGScope Knows Which Chunks Your LLM Actually Used
Siddharth Pandey · 2026-05-31 · via DEV Community

Your retriever fetched 10 chunks. Your LLM only used 3. RAGScope shows a precision score of 30 out of 100. The question every new user asks: how does it know?

There is no OpenTelemetry attribute that says "this chunk was in the context window." RAGScope infers it — and the way it does this is the most consequential piece of engineering in the whole tool.


There Is No "In Context" Attribute in OTel

The OpenTelemetry semantic conventions for generative AI (gen_ai.*) define attributes for model, input/output tokens, and retrieved documents. They do not define anything like gen_ai.chunk.reached_llm or gen_ai.retrieval.used_document_ids.

When your RETRIEVER span fires, you get a list of documents. When your LLM span fires, you get a prompt and a completion. The two spans are connected by a parent-child trace relationship — but there is no attribute that maps which retrieved documents appear in which prompt.

This gap matters. A reranker might drop 7 of your 10 chunks. Your application code might apply a token budget and truncate 4 more. From the trace alone, you cannot tell.

RAGScope needs this information to compute the precision sub-score — the highest-weighted metric at 40% of the overall score. Getting it wrong would make precision meaningless.


The Substring Match — How assembleContext Works

RAGScope's answer is in src/enrichment/pipeline.ts, in a function called assembleContext:

function assembleContext(chunks: RagChunk[], llmSpans: ParsedSpan[]): RagChunk[] {
  const llmPrompts = llmSpans.map((s) => s.prompt).filter((p): p is string => !!p);
  if (llmPrompts.length === 0) return chunks;

  let position = 0;
  return chunks.map((chunk) => {
    if (!chunk.content) return chunk;
    const inContext = llmPrompts.some((p) => p.includes(chunk.content!));
    if (inContext) {
      return { ...chunk, inContext: true, contextPosition: position++ };
    }
    return { ...chunk, inContext: false, contextPosition: null };
  });
}

The approach: collect the raw prompt strings from every LLM span in the trace, then check whether each chunk's content appears as a literal substring of any of those prompts.

If your LLM span records its prompt in the input attribute — which TraceAI, Traceloop, and OpenTelemetry's gen_ai conventions all do — and your retriever span records the chunk content in gen_ai.retrieval.documents — RAGScope has everything it needs.

The contextPosition counter assigns an incrementing index to each in-context chunk in the order they are encountered during the chunks.map() iteration — which follows retrieval rank, not prompt position. It tracks which retrieved chunks are in context and their relative order among in-context chunks.

Why substring matching works

Frameworks like LangChain and LlamaIndex build LLM prompts by concatenating retrieved chunk contents, often wrapped in minimal formatting like Context:\n{chunk}\n. The chunk text itself is usually present verbatim. As long as the chunk content recorded on the RETRIEVER span matches what was injected into the prompt string — which it does when both come from the same retrieval call — substring matching is reliable.

The constraint: chunk.content must be non-empty and non-null. RAGScope only stores content when the RETRIEVER span includes it in the documents array. If your instrumentation omits content and only records chunk IDs, assembleContext cannot match, and precision will read 0% until content is included.


What This Means for Your Precision Score

scoreRetrieval in src/audit/scorer.ts uses the inContext flag directly:

function scoreRetrieval(chunks: RagChunk[]): SubScore {
  const used = chunks.filter((c) => c.inContext).length;
  const score = Math.round((used / chunks.length) * 100);
  return {
    name: 'precision',
    score,
    symbol: symbol(score),
    finding: `${used}/${chunks.length} chunks used`,
    recommendation:
      score < 60
        ? `Reduce TOP_K ${chunks.length}${Math.max(used, 3)} (only ${used} chunks reached LLM)`
        : null,
  };
}

If 3 of 10 chunks appear in the LLM prompt, precision = 30. The recommendation fires automatically: Reduce TOP_K 10→3. The score contributes 40% to the overall — a 30 on precision alone floors your overall score to at most 43, even if efficiency, redundancy, and coverage are perfect.

This is the most common cause of FAIL scores: teams set TOP_K=10 during early experimentation and never reduce it. Ten chunks get retrieved. Three reach the LLM. The other seven waste token budget and push the efficiency score down too.

The --verbose flag makes this explicit. Each sub-score prints with its finding:

   ✗  precision    30/100  3/10 chunks used
   ✗  efficiency   45/100  55% tokens wasted

And the Recommendations section:

 Recommendations
   → Reduce TOP_K 10→3 (only 3 chunks reached LLM)
   → 55% of retrieved tokens never reached the LLM

When precision reads 0% unexpectedly

If your trace has no LLM spans — for example, you're testing your retriever in isolation — llmPrompts will be empty and assembleContext returns all chunks unchanged with inContext: false. In that case, scoreRetrieval sees zero used chunks over a non-zero total, and precision reads 0.

If your trace has no chunks at all, scoreRetrieval short-circuits to a score of 100 with the finding no chunks — the assumption being that a trace with no retrieved chunks represents a non-retrieval query that shouldn't be penalized.


Conclusion

RAGScope's precision score is only meaningful because assembleContext solves the hardest observability problem in RAG pipelines: figuring out which retrieved chunks actually reached the model. It does this by checking chunk content against LLM prompt strings — no extra instrumentation, no special attributes, no embeddings.

The implication for your setup: include chunk content in your RETRIEVER spans. Without it, assembleContext cannot match, precision stays at zero, and the most impactful metric in your audit is blind. With it, you get the exact number that tells you whether your TOP_K setting is costing you context budget.

Try it: GitHub · npm


Key Takeaways

  • OTel has no "in context" attribute — RAGScope determines LLM context inclusion by checking if chunk content is a substring of the LLM span's prompt string
  • assembleContext in src/enrichment/pipeline.ts performs this matching; contextPosition tracks relative order among in-context chunks (by retrieval rank, not prompt position)
  • Precision is 40% of the overall score — a low precision score is the most common cause of FAIL labels
  • If chunk content is missing from your RETRIEVER spans, precision will read 0%; include content in your instrumentation to get accurate scores
  • The automatic recommendation (Reduce TOP_K N→M) fires when precision < 60%, giving a concrete action to take immediately