跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

langfuse-tracing

Wires Langfuse tracing into LLM apps for production observability, monitoring, telemetry, and offline eval - instruments via `@observe` (Python) / `startActiveObservation` (TS) decorators that auto-capture inputs / outputs / timings / errors per generation; exposes `langfuse.update_current_span()` for metadata + cost / latency annotation; supports trace-bound scoring for eval datasets and prompt-as-code management. Use when the user needs to monitor, log, trace, or debug LLM API calls in production beyond pre-deploy eval, wants to add LLM observability tooling to an existing app, or wants to ship traces from production to an eval dataset for offline regression testing.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa星标 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(4)

  • SKILL.md7.5 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json809 B
  • references/ci-integration.md1.5 KB
  • references/datasets.md971 B

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

langfuse-tracing

Overview

Langfuse is a production LLM observability platform (per lf-gh).

Step 1 - Install

Per lf-gh:

pip install langfuse

For TypeScript:

npm install @langfuse/tracing

Set up project credentials per Langfuse self-hosted or cloud project (LANGFUSE_PUBLIC_KEY + LANGFUSE_SECRET_KEY + LANGFUSE_HOST).

Step 2 - Instrument with @observe

Per langfuse.com/docs/sdk/python/decorators:

Python:

from langfuse import observe

@observe(name="llm-call", as_type="generation")  # auto-captures inputs, outputs, timings, errors
async def my_async_llm_call(prompt_text):
    return "LLM response"

TypeScript - create an observation, do work inside it, then end it:

import { startActiveObservation } from "@langfuse/tracing";

const { observation, end } = startActiveObservation({
  name: "llm-call",
  type: "generation",
  input: { prompt: promptText },
});

try {
  const result = await callMyLLM(promptText);
  observation.update({ output: result });
  return result;
} finally {
  end();
}

Validation: After your first instrumented call, open the Langfuse UI → Traces. You should see a new trace with nested observations, inputs, outputs, and timings. If no trace appears within ~30 s:

  • Confirm LANGFUSE_PUBLIC_KEY, LANGFUSE_SECRET_KEY, and LANGFUSE_HOST are set in the process environment.
  • Call await langfuse.flushAsync() (TS) / langfuse.flush() (Python) before process exit to force-drain the queue.
  • Check langfuse.debug() output for connection errors.

Step 3 - Update current observation with metadata

Per lf-py-deco:

from langfuse import get_client

langfuse = get_client()

with langfuse.start_as_current_observation(as_type="span", name="data-processing"):
    langfuse.update_current_span(metadata={"step1_complete": True})

Common metadata fields used in production:

  • model - the model name (e.g., claude-haiku-4-5)
  • model_parameters - temperature / top_p / max_tokens
  • usage - input/output tokens, cost
  • tags - environment (prod / staging), feature flag, customer ID
  • level - DEBUG / DEFAULT / WARNING / ERROR

Step 4 - Score traces

Per langfuse.com/docs/scores:

langfuse.score(
    trace_id="...",
    name="answer_relevance",
    value=0.87,           # numeric (0-1); also supports categorical (string) and boolean
    comment="Judged by GPT-4 rubric"
)

Scores can come from:

  • Manual review (human raters via the Langfuse UI)
  • Automated eval (run a metric in batch, score by trace_id)
  • User feedback (thumbs-up / thumbs-down from the app)

Validation: After scoring, open the Langfuse UI → Traces → select the trace. The score should appear in the Scores panel. If missing, confirm the trace_id matches an existing trace and that the score call did not raise an exception.

Step 5 - Datasets for offline eval

Datasets are collections of (input, expected_output) items built from production traces, CSV / JSONL imports, or the UI. Run one against your app to diff vs a baseline:

items = langfuse.get_dataset_items(dataset_id="...")
for item in items:
    actual = my_llm_app(item.input)
    item.run(actual)  # links the run back to the dataset for diff vs baseline

See references/datasets.md for building datasets from production traces, the lf-ds API signature, and the run-validation checkpoint.

Step 6 - Prompt management

Fetch the current production prompt at runtime and pin its version so prompt drift is traceable:

from langfuse import get_client

langfuse = get_client()

# Fetch the production-labelled prompt; falls back to cache if offline
prompt = langfuse.get_prompt("my-prompt-name", label="production")
compiled = prompt.compile(user_input=user_query)

# Pass compiled text to your LLM call
response = my_llm_call(compiled)

Iterate prompt text in the Langfuse UI and roll out new versions per environment (production / staging labels) without code deploys. Version history and A/B comparison are available in the UI.

Validation: After an instrumented call using a managed prompt, open the Langfuse UI → Traces → select the trace. The prompt name and version should appear in the trace metadata, confirming prompt version is pinned and attributable.

Step 7 - CI integration

Langfuse is observability-side, not pre-deploy CI-side. Post-deploy CI patterns query the Langfuse API for recent traces and assert on aggregate metrics (a score-query gate, eval-on-trace, cost-regression, score-based alerting). Runnable gate script and the full pattern list: references/ci-integration.md.

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Trace everything in production with no samplingCost explodes at scaleUse level=DEBUG + UI-side sampling (Step 3)
Score traces only via UI (no automated path)Can't catch silent regressionsAutomated langfuse.score() per trace (Step 4)
Pull production trace inputs without privacy reviewPII leakage into eval datasetsCross-ref synthetic-pii-generator for fixture sanitization before promotion
Skip prompt versioningPrompt drift breaks attributionlangfuse.get_prompt() with version pin (Step 6)
Conflate Langfuse with pre-deploy evalTries to be both; wins neitherPair Langfuse (post-deploy) with Promptfoo/DeepEval/Ragas (pre-deploy)

Version notes

Per lf-gh, the SDK was rewritten in v4 and released in March 2026; this skill targets the v4 API. v3 patterns are no longer supported - pin the SDK version in requirements, and for v3 codebases see the upstream migration guide.

Limitations

  • Langfuse cloud is hosted; for data-residency-strict teams, self-host (well-supported but operational overhead).
  • SDK and score-API signatures may drift between versions; always consult langfuse.com/docs and lf-scores when authoring wiring against any rapidly-evolving endpoint.
  • Integration with eval frameworks evolves rapidly; consult langfuse.com/docs for current Promptfoo / DeepEval / Ragas integration patterns.

References

  • lf-gh - Python SDK repo, install, version note
  • lf-py-deco - @observe decorator + observation patterns
  • lf-scores - score API
  • lf-ds - datasets
  • lf-docs - full documentation
  • promptfoo-evaluation, deepeval-evaluation, ragas-evaluation, giskard-llm - pre-deploy eval sister tools

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

查看 testland 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题