COURSE 18L1100% FREE
Verified 2026-08-14

Safety eval suites

Bundles of tests for disallowed behaviors, privacy leaks, and tool misuse—run like a regression suite. Distinct from capability leaderboards: here the goal is **robust refusal / safe behavior**, not higher quiz scores.

What it is

Bundles of tests for disallowed behaviors, privacy leaks, and tool misuse—run like a regression suite. Distinct from capability leaderboards: here the goal is robust refusal / safe behavior, not higher quiz scores.

MEDIUM PRIORITYDIAGRAM
◷ IN PRODUCTION

Visual Spec & Architecture Diagram

Safety suite layers: automated classifiers → curated prompts → human red team → production monitors. Coverage heatmap fake.

Educational Focus: Shows defense-in-depth for eval.

Why it matters

Capability evals alone miss harm pathways. HarmBench (ICML 2024) exists because automated red-teaming lacked a standardized measurement frame for attacks *and* defenses—literacy: the field needs comparable refusal metrics, not ad-hoc demos.

How it works (plain)

Policy → test cases by category → automated + expert review → severity scores → block ship on high severity → retest after fixes. No public exploit cookbooks in this curriculum.

UK AISI frames safety-relevant capability measurement as early-warning evidence for policymakers—not a regulator’s “safe/unsafe” stamp.

Everyday example

Aviation checklists: you re-run critical items after any change to the aircraft—not once at delivery.

Try it

Write 5 policy-breaking *goals* (not attack steps) for your product and map each to a severity (low/med/high/critical).

Myths

⚠️ Myth: One safety suite forever.
✓ Reality: New tools/features need new cases.
⚠️ Myth: Higher MMLU implies safer.
✓ Reality: Orthogonal axes—measure both.

Sources