Skip to main content
/tayyab/portfolio — zsh
tayyab
TA
> OPERATION: AI Internal Knowledge Search - Company Brain Platform | STATUS: COMPLETE ✓
API Automation

AI Internal Knowledge Search - Company Brain Platform

RAG-powered enterprise search platform that provides context-aware answers by searching across documents, emails, and Notion workspaces.

Manual and Automation QA Engineer

OVERVIEW

As a Manual and Automation QA Engineer, I was responsible for testing and validating an AI-powered internal knowledge search platform (Company Brain) that leverages Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to provide context-aware answers from enterprise data sources. The platform integrates with Google Docs, Outlook emails, Notion, and other knowledge repositories to deliver accurate, sourced answers to employee queries.

TECH STACK

Testing Tools
Selenium WebDriverPostmanJIRATestNGJenkinspytest
Technologies
PythonAgileRAG ArchitectureLLM (OpenAI/Claude)Vector DatabasesElasticsearchREST APIsOAuth 2.0

THE CHALLENGE

Enterprises struggled with knowledge silos where critical information was scattered across documents, emails, Notion pages, and various repositories. Employees spent hours searching for answers, leading to reduced productivity and inconsistent information retrieval.

METHODOLOGY

Designed and executed comprehensive test suites for RAG pipeline accuracy, document ingestion workflows, semantic search relevance, and multi-source data synchronization. Validated context retrieval, answer generation quality, and source citation accuracy.

TEST STRATEGY

Collaborated with AI/ML engineers to test vector embedding quality, retrieval precision, and LLM response accuracy. Performed integration testing for Google Workspace, Outlook, Notion, and Confluence connectors. Conducted load testing to ensure scalability across large document corpuses.

AUTOMATION PIPELINE

Integrated automated API tests with Jenkins for continuous validation of search relevance, document indexing accuracy, and RAG pipeline performance. Set up monitoring for query latency, retrieval accuracy, and hallucination detection.

IMPACT METRICS

Information Retrieval Speed

83% avg
⟨ Manual Search

Employees manually searching through multiple platforms - Slack, email, Notion, Google Drive - often asking colleagues when search fails.

⟩ RAG-Powered Search

Single AI-powered search interface querying all connected sources with context-aware answers and source citations.

// KEY_METRICS

Avg Search Time

99%
Manual Search 45 minutes
RAG-Powered Search <30 seconds

Sources Checked

80%
Manual Search 4-6 platforms
RAG-Powered Search All (unified)

Search Success Rate

67%
Manual Search 55%
RAG-Powered Search 92%

Colleague Interrupts

87%
Manual Search 8/day
RAG-Powered Search 1/day

Answer Accuracy & Context

146% avg
⟨ Keyword Search

Traditional keyword-based search returning document lists without understanding context or providing direct answers.

⟩ RAG with LLM

RAG pipeline retrieves relevant chunks, LLM synthesizes context-aware answers with automatic source citations.

// KEY_METRICS

Answer Accuracy

104%
Keyword Search 45%
RAG with LLM 92%

Context Understanding

Keyword Search None
RAG with LLM Semantic

Source Citation

400%
Keyword Search Manual lookup
RAG with LLM Automatic

Follow-up Needed

79%
Keyword Search 70%
RAG with LLM 15%

Multi-Source Data Integration

122% avg
⟨ Siloed Data

Information trapped in separate systems with no cross-platform search, requiring manual navigation between tools.

⟩ Unified Knowledge Base

Connected integrations with Notion, Google Docs, Outlook, Confluence with real-time sync and unified vector index.

// KEY_METRICS

Connected Sources

Siloed Data 0 (siloed)
Unified Knowledge Base 8+ platforms

Data Freshness

400%
Siloed Data Point-in-time
Unified Knowledge Base Real-time sync

Cross-ref Capability

Siloed Data None
Unified Knowledge Base Automatic

Onboarding Impact

86%
Siloed Data 3 weeks
Unified Knowledge Base 3 days

Enterprise Search Scalability

1753% avg
⟨ Basic Search

Native platform search with limited results, no ranking intelligence, and performance degradation at scale.

⟩ Vector Search + RAG

Vector database with semantic embeddings, distributed architecture, and intelligent relevance ranking.

// KEY_METRICS

Document Capacity

4900%
Basic Search 10K docs
Vector Search + RAG 500K+ docs

Query Latency

73%
Basic Search 5-10 seconds
Vector Search + RAG <2 seconds

Concurrent Users

1900%
Basic Search 50
Vector Search + RAG 1000+

Relevance Ranking

138%
Basic Search Basic
Vector Search + RAG AI-powered

Knowledge Management ROI

101% avg
⟨ Hidden Costs

Employees spending significant time searching, re-creating existing content, and waiting for answers from colleagues.

⟩ Company Brain

Instant answers from company knowledge base, reduced duplication, and preserved institutional knowledge.

// KEY_METRICS

Time Lost/Employee/Week

90%
Hidden Costs 5 hours
Company Brain 30 minutes

Duplicate Content Created

86%
Hidden Costs 35%
Company Brain 5%

Knowledge Retention

138%
Hidden Costs 40%
Company Brain 95%

Annual Cost (100 emp)

90%
Hidden Costs $520K
Company Brain $52K

CODE SAMPLES

RAG Search API Test

Automated test for validating RAG-powered semantic search and context retrieval.

python
PYTHON_EXECUTION
→ Ready
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_rag_search_accuracy():
    """Test RAG pipeline returns accurate, sourced answers."""
    query = "What is our company's remote work policy?"

    response = await client.post(
        "/api/v1/knowledge/search",
        json={"query": query, "sources": ["notion", "docs", "email"]},
        headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {API_TOKEN}"}
    )

    assert response.status_code == 200
    result = response.json()

    # Validate answer structure
    assert "answer" in result
    assert "sources" in result
    assert len(result["sources"]) > 0

    # Validate source citations
    for source in result["sources"]:
        assert "document_id" in source
        assert "title" in source
        assert "relevance_score" in source
        assert source["relevance_score"] >= 0.7

    # Validate response time
    assert response.elapsed.total_seconds() < 2.0

Document Ingestion Test

Test for validating multi-source document indexing and vector embedding.

python
PYTHON_EXECUTION
→ Ready
@pytest.mark.asyncio
async def test_document_ingestion_pipeline():
    """Test document ingestion from multiple sources."""
    # Trigger sync for Notion workspace
    sync_response = await client.post(
        "/api/v1/connectors/notion/sync",
        json={"workspace_id": TEST_WORKSPACE_ID},
        headers={"Authorization": f"Bearer {API_TOKEN}"}
    )

    assert sync_response.status_code == 202
    job_id = sync_response.json()["job_id"]

    # Poll for completion
    status = await wait_for_job_completion(job_id, timeout=300)
    assert status["state"] == "completed"

    # Verify documents indexed
    stats = await client.get(f"/api/v1/index/stats")
    assert stats.json()["total_documents"] > 0
    assert stats.json()["vector_count"] > 0

    # Verify search works on new documents
    search_result = await client.post(
        "/api/v1/knowledge/search",
        json={"query": "newly indexed content test"}
    )
    assert search_result.status_code == 200

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Achieved 92% answer accuracy with proper source citations. Reduced average information retrieval time from 45 minutes to under 30 seconds. Successfully indexed 500K+ documents across multiple data sources with 99.5% sync accuracy. Platform maintained sub-2-second query response times under concurrent user load.

// interested?

READY TO BUILD SOMETHING SIMILAR?

Let's discuss how I can implement test automation for your project.

→ Get in Touch
Available for hire