> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://developers.agentx.so/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Get Report
> Get the stored analysis report with statistics and low-scoring cases
Returns the report [Analyze Run](/api-reference/custom-eval/analyze-run) stored for this run:
the narrative analysis hoisted to the top level, plus the run's identifiers, the statistics
computed when the analysis ran, and the run's low-scoring cases. Requires an analysis to exist -
a run that was never analyzed returns `404`, so an empty report is never mistaken for a run
that scored nothing.
## Authentication
Project API key.
## Path Parameters
Run ID.
## Response
Narrative analysis fields (top level, from the analysis body; absent when the analysis
failed):
| Field | Type | Description |
| ---------------------- | ------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| `summary` | string | A few sentences on how the agent performed overall |
| `consistencyScore` | number | 0-10: how consistent responses were across similar inputs |
| `instructionAdherence` | object | `{ score (0-10), analysis, deviations[], rating }` |
| `responsePatterns` | object | `{ similarities[], differences[], outliers[], rating }` |
| `reasoningAnalysis` | object | `{ cotQuality, reasoningPatterns[], reasoningGaps[], rating }` |
| `toolUsageAnalysis` | object | `{ effectiveness, patterns[], issues[], rating }` |
| `recommendations` | array | `[{ category, priority, recommendation, reasoning }]` - `category` is one of `"instructions"`, `"tools"`, `"knowledge"`, `"reasoning"`, `"consistency"`, `"other"`; `priority` and every `rating` above are `"high"` \| `"medium"` \| `"low"` |
| `instructionChanges` | array | Always `[]` for external agents (the engine doesn't own the agent's instructions) |
| `overallAssessment` | object | `{ strengths[], weaknesses[], rating }` |
Run fields (always present):
Run ID.
Dataset the run scored against.
The stored analysis status: `"completed"` or `"failed"`.
Computed when the analysis ran:
`{ numberOfRuns, averageRating, minRating, maxRating, ratingVariance }`, computed over rated
rows with smoke-test variants excluded - the same population as
[Get Run](/api-reference/custom-eval/get-run)'s `averageRating`, so the two agree.
Results with a rating of 5 or below (smoke-test variants excluded), derived fresh from the
run's own rows: `[{ query, response, rating, justification }]`.
Similarity aggregates (cosine/Jaccard/BLEU/ROUGE) are per-result, not report-level - read
them from [Get Run](/api-reference/custom-eval/get-run)'s `results` rows. `strengths`,
`weaknesses`, and the overall rating live under `overallAssessment`, not at the top level.
## Errors
| Status | Body | Meaning |
| ------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- |
| `404` | `{ "error": "Run not found" }` | No run with this id in the project |
| `404` | `{ "error": "No analysis found for this run. POST /runs/:runId/analyze first." }` | The run exists but was never analyzed |
```bash cURL theme={null}
curl "http://localhost:4700/api/v1/custom-agent-evaluations/runs/rK7dP2qWx9TzB4mV6nJcE/report" \
-H "x-api-key: agtx_local_0f3c9a17d2b84e6a5c01b9f4e7d8a2c6431b5f97a0e2d4c8"
```
```python Python SDK theme={null}
report = client.evaluations.get_report("rK7dP2qWx9TzB4mV6nJcE")
print(report.summary)
for case in report.low_scoring_cases:
print(case)
```
```json 200 OK theme={null}
{
"summary": "The agent performs well on direct how-to questions but struggles with multi-step billing queries.",
"consistencyScore": 8,
"instructionAdherence": {
"score": 9,
"analysis": "The agent generally follows the support tone guidelines.",
"deviations": ["Q3 run 2: agent gave a refund without checking eligibility"],
"rating": "high"
},
"responsePatterns": {
"similarities": ["Consistent greeting and closing"],
"differences": ["Detail level varies on billing answers"],
"outliers": ["Q3 run 2"],
"rating": "medium"
},
"reasoningAnalysis": {
"cotQuality": "Reasoning is visible and mostly sound.",
"reasoningPatterns": ["Looks up KB before answering"],
"reasoningGaps": ["Skips eligibility checks under time pressure"],
"rating": "medium"
},
"toolUsageAnalysis": {
"effectiveness": "KB search used appropriately on most cases.",
"patterns": ["search_kb before every answer"],
"issues": ["No billing tool call on refund cases"],
"rating": "medium"
},
"recommendations": [
{
"category": "instructions",
"priority": "high",
"recommendation": "Add a guardrail that requires an eligibility check before issuing refunds",
"reasoning": "One run issued a refund without confirming the customer's eligibility window"
}
],
"instructionChanges": [],
"overallAssessment": {
"strengths": ["Consistent tone", "Accurate password reset guidance"],
"weaknesses": ["Billing edge cases", "Multi-step reasoning"],
"rating": "medium"
},
"runId": "rK7dP2qWx9TzB4mV6nJcE",
"datasetId": "dS4tG7hNb2VxZ8kQ5wMyA",
"status": "completed",
"statistics": {
"numberOfRuns": 6,
"averageRating": 7.8,
"minRating": 5,
"maxRating": 10,
"ratingVariance": 1.96
},
"lowScoringCases": [
{
"query": "Why was I charged twice?",
"response": "You may have been charged twice due to a pending authorization.",
"rating": 5,
"justification": "Agent did not escalate to the billing team as required."
}
]
}
```
```json 404 No analysis yet theme={null}
{
"error": "No analysis found for this run. POST /runs/:runId/analyze first."
}
```