I made a small tool to inspect retrieval results before feeding them into RAG

Reddit r/LocalLLaMA Tools

Summary

A developer created a small local tool for inspecting retrieval results from search providers like Brave, Serper, Tavily, and Exa before feeding them into a RAG pipeline, checking signals such as source diversity, duplicates, freshness, and SEO/GEO pollution risk.

I’ve been messing around with live web retrieval for RAG, and the part that kept annoying me wasn’t the search call itself. It was figuring out whether the returned results were actually usable as evidence. A result can look relevant, but still be stale, duplicated, SEO-heavy, or just not good enough to put into the context window. So I cleaned up a small local tool for inspecting retrieval/search results before feeding them into a RAG pipeline: [https://github.com/mameirolabs/rag-search-quality-lab-public](https://github.com/mameirolabs/rag-search-quality-lab-public) It currently supports mock, Brave, Serper, Tavily, and Exa. It looks at rough signals like source diversity, duplicates, freshness, citation readiness, SEO/GEO pollution risk, and provider differences. Not trying to make a benchmark or declare which provider is “best”. The scoring is still very rough. I mostly use it to compare outputs side by side and spot bad evidence before it reaches the model. Curious how others handle this: What signals do you check before trusting retrieved web results in a RAG pipeline?
Original Article

Similar Articles

AgenticRAG: Agentic Retrieval for Enterprise Knowledge Bases

arXiv cs.AI

This paper introduces AgenticRAG, a framework from Microsoft that enhances enterprise knowledge base retrieval by equipping LLMs with tools for iterative search, document navigation, and analysis. It demonstrates significant improvements in recall and factuality over standard RAG pipelines on multiple benchmarks.

When Retrieval Doesn't Help: A Large-Scale Study of Biomedical RAG

arXiv cs.CL

A large-scale study across 5 models (7B–72B), 10 biomedical QA datasets, 4 retrieval methods, and 4 corpora finds that RAG yields only small and inconsistent gains (1–2 points) over no-retrieval baselines in biomedical question answering. The study concludes that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality but models' limited ability to effectively use retrieved evidence.