A finished message is not the acceptance test

Official guidance emphasizes reviewable artifacts and testing workflows before automation. The scorecard here is our original evaluation framework. It is not an xAI benchmark, a certification, or evidence of measured Grok Bot performance.

Documentation: Official files and results guide ↗ Official skills and routines guide ↗

Build a small set with known answers

Choose examples where a human can establish the expected result. For an action extractor, include notes with clear assignments, ambiguous ownership, and no actions. For a reconciliation, include a correct match, an intentional mismatch, and a missing record.

Keep the inputs and expected outputs before you run the Bot. Otherwise, it is easy to accept a plausible result and redefine success around it. A few cases expose obvious failure modes; they do not measure every situation the workflow might encounter.

  1. Write three to five acceptance checks specific to the job.
  2. Prepare a normal input, an ambiguous input, an empty input, and an unavailable-source case.
  3. Run with safe records and preparation-only permissions.
  4. Score each result against the checks before changing the instructions.
  5. Revise the method, then retest failed cases and one previously passing case.

Score usefulness, completeness, and boundaries

For each case, record pass, fail, or not assessable for correctness, completeness, traceability, permission behavior, and usability. Keep the reason beside the score. 'Not assessable' is a useful result when the source cannot establish truth; do not count it as a pass.

Measure your review and correction time separately from machine run time. A report that arrives overnight may still take too long to verify. Compare the human effort with a similar manual task, including setup and maintenance. Publish a time-saving claim only with the measurement method and sample size.

  • Correctness: the result agrees with known source facts.
  • Completeness: expected items are present, including awkward cases.
  • Traceability: another person can locate the supporting evidence.
  • Boundaries: the workflow stays within the authorized actions.
  • Usability: the artifact answers the intended question without major repair.

Ask for a review packet

Let the Bot help assemble evidence, while retaining an independent human check of the outcome.

Try this brief

For this workflow run, return a review packet containing the exact input scope, source links or record IDs, the final artifact, checks performed, unresolved uncertainties, and any actions taken. Compare the output with these acceptance criteria: [criteria]. Mark criteria that cannot be assessed rather than assuming success. Do not claim time saved or production reliability. Include enough detail for me to verify a sample independently.

Original editorial template. Replace placeholders and review access before running.

Retest the change that matters

When a source format, connector, or instruction changes, rerun the cases that depend on it. Keep the previous accepted result for comparison. Promote a workflow gradually: useful draft, repeatable draft, supervised action, then only the specific unattended behavior you have chosen to authorize.

Sources & next steps

Capabilities are grounded in the documentation below. The workflow design and acceptance checks are editorial suggestions.

Build your own workflow brief ↗