| name | RAG Pipeline Builder |
| slug | rag-pipeline-builder |
| description | Build retrieval-augmented generation systems that ground LLM responses in your data |
| category | ai-ml |
| complexity | advanced |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| author | ID8Labs |
| triggers | build RAG, retrieval augmented generation, RAG pipeline, ground LLM in data, knowledge base AI |
| tags | RAG, retrieval, LLM, embeddings, vector-search |
RAG Pipeline Builder
The RAG Pipeline Builder skill guides you through designing and implementing Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems that enhance LLM responses with relevant context from your own data. RAG combines the power of large language models with the precision of information retrieval, reducing hallucinations and enabling AI to work with private, current, or domain-specific knowledge.
This skill covers the complete RAG stack: document ingestion, chunking strategies, embedding generation, vector storage, retrieval optimization, context injection, and response generation. It helps you make informed decisions at each stage based on your specific requirements for accuracy, latency, cost, and scale.
Whether you are building a documentation Q&A bot, a customer support system, or an enterprise knowledge assistant, this skill ensures your RAG implementation follows production best practices.
Core Workflows
Workflow 1: Design RAG Architecture
- Define requirements:
- Data sources and formats
- Query types and patterns
- Accuracy requirements
- Latency budget
- Scale expectations
- Choose components:
- Document loaders
- Chunking strategy
- Embedding model
- Vector database
- LLM for generation
- Reranking layer (optional)
- Design data flow:
Documents → Loader → Chunker → Embedder → Vector DB ↓ Query → Embedder → Vector Search → Reranker → Context ↓ Context + Query → LLM → Response - Document architecture decisions
Workflow 2: Implement Ingestion Pipeline
- Set up document loaders:
- PDF, Markdown, HTML parsers
- API connectors for live sources
- Incremental update handling
- Implement chunking:
def smart_chunk(doc, chunk_size=500, overlap=50): # Respect document structure sections = extract_sections(doc) chunks = [] for section in sections: if len(section) > chunk_size: chunks.extend(sliding_window(section, chunk_size, overlap)) else: chunks.append(section) return add_metadata(chunks, doc) - Generate embeddings with batching
- Store in vector database with metadata
- Verify ingestion quality
Workflow 3: Optimize Retrieval Quality
- Measure baseline retrieval performance:
- Recall@k for known queries
- Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR)
- Relevance scoring
- Apply optimization techniques:
- Query expansion/rewriting
- Hybrid search (semantic + keyword)
- Reranking with cross-encoders
- Metadata filtering
- Tune retrieval parameters:
- Number of chunks to retrieve (k)
- Similarity threshold
- Diversity/MMR settings
- Validate improvements with test set
Quick Reference
| Action | Command/Trigger |
|---|---|
| Design RAG system | "Help me design a RAG pipeline for [use case]" |
| Choose vector DB | "Which vector database for RAG" |
| Optimize chunking | "Best chunking strategy for [content type]" |
| Improve retrieval | "My RAG has poor retrieval quality" |
| Reduce hallucinations | "RAG still hallucinating, help fix" |
| Scale pipeline | "Scale RAG to [X] documents" |
Best Practices
Chunk at Semantic Boundaries: Preserve meaning in chunks
- Good: Split at paragraphs, sections, or topic boundaries
- Bad: Fixed-size splits that cut sentences mid-thought
- Include section headers as context in chunks
Include Rich Metadata: Enable filtering and context
- Source document, section, page number
- Timestamps for temporal relevance
- Categories, tags, or topics
- Use metadata filters before semantic search
Use Hybrid Search: Combine semantic and keyword search
- Semantic: Captures meaning and synonyms
- Keyword (BM25): Catches exact terms, names, codes
- Weight combination based on query type
Rerank for Quality: Two-stage retrieval improves precision
- Stage 1: Fast vector search (retrieve 20-50)
- Stage 2: Cross-encoder reranking (keep top 5-10)
- Reranking is slower but much more accurate
Show Your Work: Include citations and sources
- Return source chunks with responses
- Enable users to verify and explore
- Build trust through transparency
Handle Edge Cases: What happens when retrieval fails?
- No relevant results found
- Conflicting information in sources
- Query outside knowledge base scope
- Implement graceful fallbacks
Advanced Techniques
Multi-Index Strategy
Use different indexes for different content types:
Index 1: FAQs (short, self-contained)
Index 2: Documentation (long-form, structured)
Index 3: Conversations (temporal, contextual)
Route queries to appropriate index based on intent
Query Transformation Pipeline
Improve retrieval with query processing:
def transform_query(query):
# Step 1: Classify query type
query_type = classify_query(query)
# Step 2: Extract entities
entities = extract_entities(query)
# Step 3: Generate search queries
if query_type == "factual":
return generate_keyword_queries(query, entities)
elif query_type == "conceptual":
return generate_semantic_queries(query)
else:
return [query] # Use as-is
Contextual Compression
Reduce noise in retrieved context:
Retrieved chunks (verbose) → LLM compressor → Relevant excerpts only
Agentic RAG
Let the LLM control retrieval:
def agentic_rag(query):
# LLM decides what to search for
search_plan = llm.plan_searches(query)
# Execute searches
results = []
for search in search_plan:
results.extend(retriever.search(search.query, filters=search.filters))
# LLM synthesizes answer
return llm.synthesize(query, results)
Evaluation Framework
Continuously measure RAG quality:
Metrics:
- Retrieval: Precision@k, Recall@k, MRR
- Generation: Faithfulness, Answer Relevance, Context Utilization
- End-to-end: Task Success Rate, User Satisfaction
Tools: Ragas, TruLens, LangSmith
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
- Chunking too large (loses specificity) or too small (loses context)
- Not preserving document structure and hierarchy in chunks
- Ignoring keyword search when exact matches matter
- Retrieving too few chunks (missing information) or too many (context dilution)
- Not handling conflicting information across sources
- Assuming LLM will always use retrieved context correctly
- Skipping evaluation and monitoring in production
- Not updating embeddings when source documents change