agent-observability
Skill4 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- paulopestanajunior/agents-configtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- guerrilla2799/ops-and-scale-ostheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- Sathvikar01/Agent-engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- VoDaiLocz/kilo-kit-mcptheir own version, first seen Aug 21, 2026
- m00kk/agent-skills-playbooktheir own version, first seen May 29, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- VoDaiLocz/kilo-kit-mcp★ 28same name
- Sathvikar01/Agent-engineering-skills★ 3same name
- guerrilla2799/ops-and-scale-os★ 1same name
- paulopestanajunior/agents-config★ 1same name
- m00kk/agent-skills-playbook★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository125 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .cursor/rules/agent-loom-routing.mdcCursor rule
- .cursor/rules/agent-loom-skills-index.mdcCursor rule
- adversarial-hatSkill
- agent-builderSkill
- agent-launcherSkill
- agent-loom-syncSkill
- agent-run-retroSkill
- agent-system-architectureSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- api-deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- apply-paper-to-projectSkill
- app-security-hardeningSkill
- architectural-decision-logSkill
- assumption-mappingSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- browser-testing-with-devtoolsSkill
- business-modelingSkill
- ci-cd-and-automationSkill
- codebase-understandingSkill
- code-review-crspSkill
- code-simplificationSkill
- compress-skillSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- create-agent-promptSkill
- cross-link-skillsSkill
- customer-discoverySkill
- debug-and-fixSkill
- deep-thinkingSkill
- dependency-mappingSkill
- deploy-anywhereSkill
- deprecate-skillSkill
- design-directionSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-systemSkill
- dynamic-routingSkill
- eval-judgeSkill
- eval-outputSkill
- eval-pipelineSkill
- eval-rubric-designSkill
- experimentationSkill
- experiment-backlogSkill
- experiment-readoutSkill
- experiment-runbookSkill
- experiment-specSkill
- fault-localizeSkill
- feature-specSkill
- fermiSkill
- first-principlesSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- generate-changelogSkill
- git-workflow-and-versioningSkill
- gsap-animationSkill
- harness-engineeringSkill
- harness-evolutionSkill
- harness-generationSkill
- idea-evaluationSkill
- idea-generationSkill
- implementation-planSkill
- improve-skillsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 44
Never log secrets, API keys, or user PII into trace payloads — configure redaction/masking before production traffic, not after.
- Distinctive: line 45
Never propose self-hosting on the user's machine.
- Very specific: line 46
Always instrument against OpenTelemetry GenAI conventions (gen_ai.*) or OpenInference — never a proprietary-only SDK — so the backend can …
- Distinctive: line 47
Always verify the first trace end-to-end (run once, open the trace, see spans + token counts) before calling the setup done.
- Distinctive: line 48
Always set a sampling/cost policy before production scale — keep failures at 100%, sample successes.
- Distinctive: line 62
Run one real request. Open the backend UI.
- Very specific: line 85
Instrument to the standard, not the vendor: All major backends ingest OTel GenAI gen_ai.* spans.
- Very specific: line 105
Read references/examples.md for full walkthroughs (Langfuse path, redaction setup, backend swap).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Agent Observability
You instrument the user's product agents — not the coding agent — so every run leaves a trace that can be inspected, scored, and learned from. You explain everything in plain language: the user is non-technical.
Plain-Language Primer (teach this first, once)
- A trace is the full story of one request: every model call, tool call, and retrieval step, in order, with timing, tokens, and cost attached.
- A span is one step inside that story (one LLM call, one tool call).
- Observability means you can answer "why did this output happen?" and "what did this run cost?" after the fact, without guessing.
- The backend is a separate managed service. Your product sends trace data to it over HTTPS as a side effect of running. You do NOT host it yourself in the common case, and it never runs on your laptop.
- Why it matters: an agent can return a confident wrong answer with HTTP 200. Without traces you cannot debug it, cannot measure quality, and cannot run any learning loop (
runtime-learning-loophard-fails without this).
Hard Rules
Never log secrets, API keys, or user PII into trace payloads — configure redaction/masking before production traffic, not after.
Never propose self-hosting on the user's machine. Managed free tier first; self-host-in-cloud is a clearly-labeled last resort.
Always instrument against OpenTelemetry GenAI conventions (gen_ai.*) or OpenInference — never a proprietary-only SDK — so the backend can be swapped later by config, not a rewrite.
Always verify the first trace end-to-end (run once, open the trace, see spans + token counts) before calling the setup done.
Always set a sampling/cost policy before production scale — keep failures at 100%, sample successes.
Workflow
Step 1 — Scope
Identify: which agent flows matter most (start with ONE), expected volume/month, whether data is sensitive (PII/health/finance), and which framework the product uses (Google ADK, LangGraph/LangChain, OpenAI/Anthropic SDK direct, custom).
Step 2 — Choose a backend
Read references/backends.md (decision table, free tiers, tradeoffs — verify current pricing at decision time; tiers change). Defaults: Langfuse Cloud free tier for general use; Phoenix for agent-heavy/ADK products (deepest multi-step agent views); LangSmith only if the product is LangChain/LangGraph-first. Sensitive data → check the backend's redaction options FIRST; most redact nothing by default.
Step 3 — Instrument
Prefer auto-instrumentation for the detected framework (one register()/instrument() call + env vars for keys/endpoint). Put API keys in environment variables — never in code. Wrap only the entry point; let the instrumentor capture nested spans. Tag spans with user_id/session_id/feature name so cost and quality can be sliced later.
Step 4 — Verify first trace
Run one real request. Open the backend UI. Confirm: full span tree visible, prompts/completions captured, token counts + cost present, no secrets/PII in payloads. If any check fails, fix before proceeding.
Step 5 — Cost and sampling policy
Async exporters add negligible latency; the real costs are storage and noise. Policy: 100% of failed runs, sampled successes (start 10–25% at scale), retention matched to the free tier's window. Set a monthly span budget aligned to the free-tier cap.
Step 6 — Wire to quality loops
Point eval-pipeline at production traces (score samples with eval-judge); this trace+eval pair is the precondition runtime-learning-loop checks. Record backend choice + config in docs/observability/OBSERVABILITY.md and log it to docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md.
Output Format
=== Observability Plan: [product] ===
Flow instrumented: [flow] | Framework: [ADK|LangGraph|SDK|custom]
Backend: [name + tier] — why: [1 line] | Est. volume: [spans/mo] vs free cap: [cap]
Redaction: [what is masked] | Sampling: [failures 100%, successes N%]
First trace verified: [yes/no] | Saved: docs/observability/OBSERVABILITY.md
Next: eval-pipeline wiring → runtime-learning-loop precondition metGotchas
- Traces are for the shipped product;
run-traceis for the coding agent. Different data, different store — never mix them. - SaaS backends receive your prompts. That is user data leaving your infrastructure — check redaction defaults (usually OFF) before pointing production at them.
- Instrument to the standard, not the vendor. All major backends ingest OTel GenAI
gen_ai.*spans; the backend is a 2-year decision, the instrumentation is forever. - Free-tier caps are per month and small (e.g. tens of thousands of spans). One agent request can emit 5–30 spans. Do the multiplication before promising "free".
- A trace that omits tool calls is half a trace. Multi-agent debugging lives in the tool/handoff spans, not the final completion.
Example
<examples>
<example>
<input>My appeal-drafting app gives weird answers sometimes and I have no idea why. Add observability. It's Google ADK + FastAPI on Cloud Run.</input>
<output>
Primer given (traces/spans/backend in plain language).
Scope: draft-appeal flow, ~3k requests/mo (~30k spans), synthetic PHI only — still mask document text.
Backend: Phoenix (deepest agent-trace views; OpenInference auto-instrumentation for ADK) — cloud free tier fits 30k spans/mo.
Instrumented via openinference-instrumentation for ADK + env-var keys. First trace verified: 14 spans, tokens + cost visible, document text masked.
Sampling: failures 100%, successes 25%. Saved docs/observability/OBSERVABILITY.md. Logged to SKILL-OUTPUTS.
Next: wire eval-pipeline to score 20 sampled traces/week.
</output>
</example>
</examples>Read references/examples.md for full walkthroughs (Langfuse path, redaction setup, backend swap).
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
| "Add observability later, ship first" | You cannot debug the past — traces only exist from instrumentation day forward. |
| "Logs are enough" | Logs show 200 OK; traces show the wrong retrieval that caused the bad answer. |
| "Self-host to save money" | Ops burden (DB + Redis + storage) exceeds free-tier value at this scale; laptop hosting is banned. |
| "Pick the backend by brand" | Pick by framework fit + free-tier math + redaction needs; instrumentation stays portable. |
| "Trace everything forever" | Cost and noise explode; sample successes, keep failures, match retention to need. |
Verification
- First real trace opened in backend UI with full span tree + token counts
- No secrets or PII visible in any span payload (spot-check 3 traces)
- Sampling + retention policy written into OBSERVABILITY.md
- Instrumentation is OTel GenAI / OpenInference (backend swappable by config)
- docs/skill-outputs/SKILL-OUTPUTS.md appended
Red Flags
- Backend chosen before checking framework auto-instrumentation support
- Production traffic flowing with default (empty) redaction config
- Proprietary SDK wrapped around every call site instead of one instrumentor
- "Observability done" claimed without opening a single real trace
- Coding-agent activity and product traces mixed in one store
Impact Report
Observability set up for: [product/flow]
Backend: [name + tier] | Framework instrumented: [name]
First trace verified: [yes/no] | Redaction: [configured/not needed]
Sampling: [policy] | Files: docs/observability/OBSERVABILITY.md
Ready for: eval-pipeline wiring, runtime-learning-loop preconditionDoes it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

