[pull] master from supabase:master#911
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…h needsApproval (#45654) ## Motivation When Assistant runs a potentially destructive tool like `execute_sql`, it stops the LLM request and prompts for client-side approval and execution of the tool. After approval, a second request kicks off under a separate trace. This has made scoring and [Topics](https://www.braintrust.dev/blog/topics) classification challenging, as the generated `output` is split across stateless requests. The [span-level scoring](https://www.braintrust.dev/docs/evaluate/custom-code#score-spans) approach we've used thusfar (after the LLM call, we massage the result into an `output` payload that's stuck onto the root span) has been cumbersome and led to invalid scores / topics where only part of the assistant response is considered. It's also inefficient, as we're duplicating potentially large info (like the `search_docs` output) that already exists within the trace. An alternative to scoring spans is to [score traces](https://www.braintrust.dev/docs/evaluate/custom-code#score-traces). Braintrust [best practices](https://www.braintrust.dev/docs/evaluate/score-online#best-practices) advise: > Use span scope for evaluating individual operations or outputs. Use trace scope for evaluating multi-turn conversations, overall workflow completion, or when your scorer needs access to the full execution context. We've also received [direct guidance](https://supabase.slack.com/archives/C05QYJBLX89/p1777925770927149?thread_ts=1777905716.911979&cid=C05QYJBLX89) from their team to use this approach. ## Changes Migrates eval scorers from custom `AssistantEvalOutput` shape to trace-level scoring via `trace.getThread()` / `trace.getSpans()`, with thread parsing that scores the full latest Assistant turn and passes prior conversation separately where relevant. Moves `execute_sql` and `deploy_edge_function` from client-side execution after approval to AI SDK `needsApproval` + server-side `execute()`. SQL results returned to the model are gated by AI opt-in level, so row data is only included with `schema_and_log_and_data`; otherwise the tool returns the no-data-permissions sentinel. Adds `metadata.isFinalStep` to disambiguate multiple LLM requests within an "assistant" turn due to tool call requests/responses. For online evals, this means we should configure automations to only score traces with `metadata.isFinalStep = true` to ensure we're judging the complete generated response. Other minor kaizen changes: - Renamed `promptProviderOptions` to `systemProviderOptions` to clarify that this is associated with the "system" message and disambiguate from the root `providerOptions` - Adds `evals/trace-utils.ts` to handle Zod validation of the `unknown` span shapes from Braintrust, to more easily access typed inputs/output on tool spans. - Bumps AI SDK floor version `^6.0.116` → `^6.0.174` - Tweaked the "Conciseness" scorer to not unfairly dock points for the new `[called tool_name]` labels in serialized assistant response ## Verification In the studio staging build, I asked Assistant to create a todos table with 3 sample todos. I manually approved the `execute_sql` call and saw Assistant generate text before & after the call. In Braintrust I verified two traces were produced (see [filtered logs](https://www.braintrust.dev/app/supabase.io/p/Assistant/logs?v=Staging&tvt=trace&search={%22filter%22:[{%22text%22:%22metadata.environment%2520%253D%2520%27staging%27%22,%22label%22:%22metadata.environment%2520%253D%2520%27staging%27%22,%22originType%22:%22btql%22},{%22text%22:%22%2560Chat%2520ID%2560%2520%253D%2520%25221cb2ac45-e5e7-458c-9da4-3bf6863b8842%2522%22,%22label%22:%22Chat%2520ID%2520equals%25201cb2ac45-e5e7-458c-9da4-3bf6863b8842%22,%22originType%22:%22form%22}]})), the first with `metadata.isFinalStep = false` and the second with `metadata.isFinalStep = true`. In the Braintrust staging scorers, I ran the preview Completeness scorer on the second trace and verified it sees the complete Assistant response including markers for tool calls ([link to trace](https://www.braintrust.dev/app/supabase.io/p/Assistant%20(Staging%20Scorers)/trace?object_type=project_logs&object_id=b5214b62-ad1e-4929-9d5b-40b1daebe948&r=0ed0a4f8-8aff-4a34-bb1d-1df1d88a5070&s=ff9015f8-6bf7-4ab3-83a9-ca4e69e27e82)) <img width="1193" height="960" alt="CleanShot 2026-05-07 at 11 27 10@2x" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/509d4858-c3a1-4068-986d-3aa4d5617d1a" /> I also tested the `deploy_edge_function` workflow and verified it still prompts for permission and warns on deployment of existing functions. **References** - https://www.braintrust.dev/docs/evaluate/custom-code#score-traces - https://ai-sdk.dev/docs/ai-sdk-core/tools-and-tool-calling#tool-execution-approval Supercedes #45556 and #45339 Closes AI-473 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit * **New Features** * Tool actions (SQL execution, edge-function deploy) now require explicit user Approve/Deny before proceeding. * **Improvements** * Assistant pauses for approval responses before sending follow-ups, giving clearer control over risky actions. * Deploy/replace flows show confirmation and clearer replace warnings. * Evaluation/scoring updated to use richer trace data for more accurate assistant performance signals. <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
Adds `README.md` to `apps/studio/evals` explaining the development workflow for updating offline and online evals for Studio's AI Assistant. Resolves AI-681 <!-- This is an auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai --> ## Summary by CodeRabbit * **Documentation** * Added comprehensive documentation for Studio Assistant Evals, covering evaluation setup, configuration of scoring methods, and deployment workflows for both offline and online evaluation processes. [](https://app.coderabbit.ai/change-stack/supabase/supabase/pull/45840) <!-- end of auto-generated comment: release notes by coderabbit.ai -->
](https://app.coderabbit.ai/change-stack/supabase/supabase/pull/45840){kind=link}
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See Commits and Changes for more details.
Created by
pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.4)
Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )