- What's the difference between RAG and fine-tuning?
- RAG injects fresh, factual context into a prompt at runtime by retrieving from your data; fine-tuning bakes patterns into model weights. For most production use cases — internal search, support assistants, knowledge agents — RAG is faster to ship, cheaper to maintain, and easier to keep accurate as data changes. Fine-tuning earns its keep when you need a specific tone, structured-output shape, or a smaller cheaper model that mimics a larger one.
- How do you deploy an AI agent to production?
- Production isn't a deployment step — it's an architecture. We start with an eval harness and a golden dataset before writing the agent. Then: minimum-viable agent, observability (Langfuse + Sentry), guardrails (input validation, prompt-injection defense, output policy), cost controls, cutover. Every stage is gated by eval scores, not feel.
- What are AI agent guardrails?
- Guardrails are the layered controls that keep an agent safe, accurate, and on-policy in production: input filters (prompt injection, PII redaction), policy-as-code (what the agent can and cannot do), output validation (schema, factuality, brand voice), and risk-based escalation to human review. In 2026 the bleeding edge is risk-based guardrail routing — applying heavier checks only to high-risk turns.
- How much does it cost to build a RAG system?
- Engagements are custom-quoted because the cost is dominated by your data shape, query volume, accuracy bar, and latency target — not the LLM itself. A typical scoped MVP (single domain, up to 100K documents, conversational interface) lands in an 8–10 week engagement. Long-running, multi-tenant systems with strict SLAs are scoped separately.
- What's agentic RAG?
- Agentic RAG replaces a single retrieve-then-generate pass with a multi-step loop: the model decides whether to retrieve, plans sub-queries, evaluates retrieved chunks, and may call tools mid-reasoning. It's slower per turn but dramatically more accurate on multi-hop questions. The trade-off matters most when answers must reason across multiple documents.
- How do you evaluate an LLM application?
- Three layers. Unit-level: does this prompt return the expected shape? Trajectory-level: does the agent's chain of decisions reach the correct outcome? Production-level: does live traffic match offline performance, and is drift detected fast enough to roll back? We instrument all three with Langfuse and LangSmith and gate releases on eval score deltas, not vibes.
- How do you prevent prompt injection in production?
- Defense in depth, because no single layer is sufficient. Input sanitization at the boundary, system-prompt isolation (instructions structurally separated from data), output validation against schema and policy, least-privilege tool permissions, and continuous monitoring for jailbreak signatures. We follow OWASP LLM Top 10 and NIST AI RMF as our minimum-viable security baseline.
- Which model provider should we use — OpenAI, Anthropic, or Google?
- Production-grade systems shouldn't be locked into one. We build with a provider abstraction so model swaps are a config change. Defaults: Anthropic Claude for reasoning-heavy agents and code-aware workflows; OpenAI for breadth and tool-calling maturity; Google Gemini for very long context windows and Google-stack integrations. Cost, latency, and eval score against your data — not brand — make the final call.