Item detail
github.com

luoyuctl/agenttrace

luoyuctl/agenttrace is a agent observability in RepoRadar's Developer Workflow section, holding Gold tier and a 'try now' verdict. Its strongest signal is workflow potential, scored 9.7 out of 10.

Score8.2
Popularity1.0
Risknone
TierGold
Score breakdown
Usefulness9.0
Novelty7.0
Momentum6.0
Maturity6.5
Open-source/build8.4
Evidence8.0
Workflow potential9.7
Setup ease6.4

Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.

Why it matters

Useful for teams that need to understand what their coding agents actually spent, where slow runs stalled, and which sessions deserve inspection before the budget disappears into unread logs.

Who should use it

Teams tracking spend and latency across multiple coding-agent toolsDevelopers diagnosing slow or failure-prone agent sessionsOperators who want HTML or markdown evidence for CI artifacts and reviewsPrivacy-minded builders who want local analysis instead of hosted telemetry

Who should skip it

Pass on luoyuctl/agenttrace if its scope or audience does not match what your team is building right now.

About this signal

luoyuctl/agenttrace is tracked by RepoRadar as a agent observability in the Developer Workflow section. It was first seen on 2026-06-30 and last updated on 2026-06-30. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Gold tier and moderate setup difficulty. Across RepoRadar's eight signals, luoyuctl/agenttrace is strongest on workflow potential (9.7) and practical usefulness (9.0) and weakest on momentum (6.0) — a profile worth weighing against your own priorities. This page summarizes the evidence RepoRadar has captured from captured source metadata. The score, tier, risk label, and verdict on this page are never influenced by sponsorship, ads, or tips — they reflect only the usefulness, popularity, novelty, momentum, maturity, and evidence signals described in the RepoRadar methodology.

How this item is evaluated

RepoRadar assigned luoyuctl/agenttrace a composite score of 8.2 out of 10, placing it in the Gold tier. This score combines weighted sub-signals: usefulness (35%), novelty (18%), momentum (14%), maturity (10%), open-source/build quality (7%), evidence quality (6%), workflow potential (6%), and setup ease (4%). Popularity is tracked separately at 1.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'none' reflects inherent user-impacting hazards, not generic novelty. Items with no risk flag may still require normal code review before production use.

Putting this into practice? Read How to vet an AI agent or MCP server before you wire it in for the checklist behind this score.

Risk explanation

No inherent user-impacting risk is flagged from the captured evidence.

Evidence links
Closest alternatives / related signals
observabilitylogsclaude-codecodexgemini-clianalyticsmit