LangChain provides the engineering platform and open source frameworks developers use to build, test, and deploy reliable AI agents.
LangChain is highly praised for its capability in building and managing AI agents, evidenced by its consistent top ratings on G2, often scoring 4.5 to 5 out of 5. Users appreciate its robust functionality but note potential issues with observability and data management when deploying in production environments. The pricing sentiment is not directly addressed in the user reviews or mentions, implying that pricing may not be a major concern for users. Overall, LangChain holds a solid reputation among AI developers, although there are some concerns about AI agents potentially causing data management issues without proper oversight.
Mentions (30d)
9
Avg Rating
4.6
20 reviews
Platforms
6
GitHub Stars
131,755
21,716 forks
LangChain is highly praised for its capability in building and managing AI agents, evidenced by its consistent top ratings on G2, often scoring 4.5 to 5 out of 5. Users appreciate its robust functionality but note potential issues with observability and data management when deploying in production environments. The pricing sentiment is not directly addressed in the user reviews or mentions, implying that pricing may not be a major concern for users. Overall, LangChain holds a solid reputation among AI developers, although there are some concerns about AI agents potentially causing data management issues without proper oversight.
Features
Use Cases
Industry
information technology & services
Employees
98
Funding Stage
Series B
Total Funding
$260.0M
17,647
GitHub followers
232
GitHub repos
131,755
GitHub stars
20
npm packages
25
HuggingFace models
2,054,811
npm downloads/wk
236,288,352
PyPI downloads/mo
Ask HN: How are you monitoring AI agents in production?
With the recent incidents (DataTalks database wipe by Claude Code, Replit agent deleting data during code freeze), it's clear that running AI agents in production without observability is risky.<p>Common failure modes I've seen: no visibility into what the agent did step-by-step, surprise LLM bills from untracked token usage, risky outputs going undetected, and no audit trail for post-mortems.<p>I've been building AgentShield (https://useagentshield.com) — an observability SDK for AI agents. It does execution tracing, risk detection on outputs, cost tracking per agent/model, and human-in-the-loop approval for high-risk actions. Plugs into LangChain, CrewAI, and OpenAI Agents SDK with a 2-line integration.<p>Curious what others are using. Rolling your own monitoring? LangSmith? Langfuse? Or just hoping for the best?
View originalPricing found: $0 / seat, $39 / seat, $39, $0.005 / deployment, $0.0007 / min
g2
What do you like best about Langchain?Out of the box features that it provides to manage and monitor llm based applications Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?Nothing in general, folks with no experience can get lost in the myriads of features it offers Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?Its ability to simplify building complex AI apps by connecting LLMs with data/APIs through a standardized, model-agnostic interface, saving significant time with ready integrations (RAG, memory, chains) and composable components, while offering powerful agent creation via LangGraph for control and observability Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?I dislike LangChain because its heavy abstractions make the codebase unnecessarily complex, opaque, and difficult to debug. This often results in a sense of 'lock-in' and complicates the process of moving to production. Many criticisms center on its bloated dependencies, outdated documentation, and the performance overhead introduced by its wrappers. Additionally, it tends to push users toward its proprietary observability tool, LangSmith, instead of allowing for straightforward, Pythonic solutions. However, I do appreciate that its integrations make it easy to get started quickly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?This framework is useful for building generative AI applications, especially when you need to utilize large language models, vector databases, retrieval mechanisms, and track the entire execution process. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?Nothing, it has only evolved to enable developers like us to develop robust applications Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?The platform is easy to use, even if you only have a basic understanding of AI concepts. I found that navigating the features didn't require advanced technical knowledge, which made the experience straightforward and accessible. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?Sometimes, other frameworks appear to be simpler. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?I really like how LangChain brings all the moving parts of AI app development together in one place. The integration with different LLMs, vector databases, and APIs is super smooth, so I don’t waste time building connectors from scratch. The documentation is improving, and the community is very active, which makes finding examples and solutions easier. It’s also flexible enough to go from a quick prototype to a production grade application without completely rewriting the code it makes it a powerful tool to have. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?While LangChain is powerful it can feel overwhelming at first because of how many modules and options it offers. The documentation, though better now, still has gaps for more advanced use cases, and sometimes breaking changes in updates mean I need to adjust my code unexpectedly. It would be nice to have more structured learning paths for newcomers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?Comprehensive abstractions for working with LLMs (chains, agents, tools) Extensive integrations with various AI models and vector databases Active community and rapid development pace Flexibility in building complex AI workflows Good documentation with practical examples Memory management capabilities for conversational AI Built-in prompt templates and output parsers Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?Steep learning curve for beginners Frequent breaking changes between versions Can be overly complex for simple use cases Debugging can be challenging with nested chains Performance overhead compared to direct API calls Documentation sometimes lags behind new features Abstractions can sometimes hide important details Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?open source Framework, modular architecture, and easy to integrate LLM models with external data. easy to use and create component like chains, agents etc. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?During the debugging the whole workflow, sometime Abstraction layers make it hard to trace issues or optimize performance, particularly with large-scale applications. Also, the rapid pace of updates can lead to deprecated features or breaking changes, which can frustrate developers trying to keep up. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?Experiment Tracking via prompt templates, Integration with Vector Database, Pipeline Composition allowing mw to separate data ingestion, transformation and inference stages, Reproducibility- it helps me LLM-powered workflows for CI/CD deployment. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?I have been facing complexity in debugging and challenges in scaling. It has fast-evolving APIs which makes it difficult to track the backward copatibility. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?What I like best about LangChain is its flexibility to integrate models, data sources, and tools seamlessly, which made building and scaling complex LLM-powered workflows much faster in my projects. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?What I dislike about LangChain is that its rapid updates sometimes break existing code or change APIs, which can make maintaining long-term projects a bit challenging. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
What do you like best about Langchain?Langchain is used to connect multi-agent system in your application. We used Langgraph which is based on Langchain that helps us orchestrate multiple workflows. It is easy to integrate and supports master-slave architecture. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.What do you dislike about Langchain?it tries to do everything in the LLM ecosystem, and that comes with trade-offs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.
Filesystems are having a moment
The AI agent ecosystem keeps rediscovering filesystems as a persistence and interoperability layer. LlamaIndex, LangChain, Oracle, and others now advocate for file-based context over massive tool integrations — coding agents like Claude Code thrive precisely because they read and write files locally. Context windows act like erasable whiteboards, not real memory, and files offer a boring but effective fix: write things down, read them back. Yet an ETH Zürich paper found that bloated context files actually hurt agent performance, suggesting they should stay minimal. Meanwhile, fragmentation reigns — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, .cursorrules all coexist — though Anthropic's SKILL.md format has gained cross-platform adoption. The deeper argument: filesystems could restore personal data ownership, acting as an open interoperability layer where your preferences, skills, and memory travel between tools without vendor lock-in. submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [comments]
View originalI'm using Claude to stress-test AI sales agents. After 126 runs, the average score is 64/100
I built a system where Claude plays the role of different synthetic prospects and has a realistic conversation with live AI agents. Then a separate Claude call scores the conversation across 6 dimensions: qualification accuracy, objection handling, tone, guardrails, conversation flow, and outcome. The interesting part is how Claude adapts mid-conversation. Each persona has a backstory, behavioral anchors, and an expected outcome. Claude generates the next message based on what the agent actually said, not from a script. If the agent gives a strong answer, the prospect softens. If the agent deflects, the prospect escalates. After 126 runs the average score is 64.3/100. The most common failure: agents handle friendly questions fine but completely miss high-intent buying signals. One agent responded to "I really like this product" with "Happy teaching!" and ended the chat. Claude is doing three jobs: persona generation, real-time conversation, and scoring. The scoring uses rubrics I wrote from 5+ years of B2B sales experience. Claude judges against those rubrics and cites specific conversation turns in its evaluation. If anyone wants to try it on their own agent: clientcoded.com/agentproof.html. You need a webhook/API endpoint (works with Botpress, custom-built agents on OpenAI/Claude/Langchain, or any REST endpoint). Takes about 10 minutes. Happy to answer questions about the prompting, scoring methodology, or how Claude handles staying in character across turns! submitted by /u/DripSkylarkII [link] [comments]
View originalI built an MCP server + Claude Code skill that hands Claude a token-budgeted context bundle instead of making it grep
Anthropic's own harness guidance steers agents toward grep/glob to find code. That works, but it's token-hungry: grep gets near-perfect recall and basically zero token efficiency because it pulls in everything around the match. archex is a local MCP server that does the retrieval step properly and hands Claude back a finished bundle — ranked, deduped, dependency-closed, with a token budget you set. Then Claude spends its context on reasoning, not on crawling imports. What's wired up for Claude Code specifically: MCP server (stdio, 14 tools): query, scout, analyze, compare, symbol lookup, graph neighbors/path/stats. Optional --watch mode keeps the index fresh as you edit. In-repo skill + /archex command so you can query/scout from inside a session without dropping to a terminal. scout protocol: a two-phase map → fetch flow. Capped at a token budget, it returns a structural map plus exact fetch handles, so the agent grabs only the bodies it actually needs. archex doctor: checks index health, grammar support, model cache, and MCP registration when results look stale. Fully local, deterministic, no API key, Apache 2.0. Head-to-head vs the nearest OSS tool: the agent needed 922 extra tokens to complete a task from an archex bundle vs 11,188 from theirs (~12x). submitted by /u/tom_mathews [link] [comments]
View originalYou asked for DeepLearning.ai-style notebooks for AgentSwarms—so we built 67 of them (TypeScript/LangChain/LangGraph/LlamaIndex/AgentsSDK/VercelAI).
Hey everyone, A few months ago, We shared the visual canvas we built for AgentSwarms. The response was incredible, but the most common piece of feedback was: "The visual canvas is great for architecture, but I need to see the actual code to really understand how to deploy this." You wanted deep-dive, code-first labs—the kind you see on DeepLearning.ai—but for multi-agent systems, faster and with more flexibility. We’ve spent the last few weeks heads-down engineering a completely new Interactive Notebooks section. As of today, we have 67 TypeScript-based notebooks live on the site (with more dropping soon). What’s in the library: We’ve covered everything from basic LangChain fundamentals to complex enterprise-level multi-agent workflows. Everything runs entirely in your browser using TypeScript—no Docker, no Python venv, no local dependencies. A personal favorite: I’m particularly excited about the "Failure Mode & Error Handling" notebook. We’ve all seen agents that work perfectly in a demo but crash in production the moment a tool times out or an LLM returns garbage. This notebook walks through: How to build deterministic validation gates between nodes. How to force an orchestrator to "catch" a worker failure and dynamically re-route or re-prompt. How to handle state recovery when a multi-agent loop gets stuck in a hallucination cycle. Why we built this: I’m tired of seeing AI "tutorials" that are just static blog posts. To master Agentic AI, you need to be able to tweak a system prompt, break the code, watch the error trace, and fix the routing logic in real-time. The entire library of 67 labs is 100% free to use. If you’re currently wrestling with how to make your agents production-grade, I’d love for you to check them out and let me know if there’s a specific "failure mode" or architecture pattern you’d like us to add to the next batch of notebooks. Try it out here: agentswarms.fyi submitted by /u/Outside-Risk-8912 [link] [comments]
View originalI built notmemory — auditable, reversible memory for AI agents. v0.1.0 on PyPI. Looking for contributors.
After too many debugging sessions where I had no idea what my agent remembered or why it made a decision — I got frustrated and built something. notmemory is an open-source Python SDK that gives AI agents auditable, reversible memory. Not magic. Just a tamper-proof record of what your agent knew, when it knew it, and the ability to undo the moment it got something wrong. The problem I kept hitting My agent would do something wrong. I'd dig into it. I could see what was currently in memory — but not what it believed at step 47 when it made the bad decision three days ago. Every debugging session felt like archaeology. I got tired of it. What notmemory does Cryptographic audit trail Every write is SHA-256 hash-chained. Like Git commits, but for memory. You always know what changed, when, and in what order. Git-like rollback await memory.rollback(transaction_id) One line. Bad write gone. Hash chain stays valid. GDPR tombstoning await memory.forget(bank_id) Proven deletion with a forensic trail. Not just "deleted from index." Conflict detection Catches duplicate or contradicting beliefs before they cause problems. Health score 0–100. Confidence decay c(t) = c₀ · 2^(−t/30) — stale memories lose weight automatically. No more old beliefs quietly poisoning recall. LangGraph drop-in from notmemory.adapters.langchain import NotMemoryCheckpointer checkpointer = NotMemoryCheckpointer() graph = builder.compile(checkpointer=checkpointer) # that's it — every checkpoint is now auditable MCP server Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf out of the box. Mem0 + SuperMemory sidecars SQLite is the source of truth. Semantic search layers on top. If the sidecar goes down, your data is fine. Multi-agent sync READ / WRITE / ADMIN permissions per memory bank per agent. Install pip install notmemory # with LangChain / LangGraph pip install "notmemory[langchain]" # with MCP pip install "notmemory[mcp]" Quick example import asyncio from notmemory import AgentMemory async def main(): async with AgentMemory() as memory: # store something entry = await memory.retain( bank_id="facts", content={"fact": "Paris is the capital of France"}, source="user", ) # search it result = await memory.recall(bank_id="facts", query="Paris") # undo it await memory.rollback(entry.transaction_id) # delete it with proof await memory.forget("facts") asyncio.run(main()) Where it is today (v0.1.0) 113 tests passing across Python 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 SQLite + FTS5 full-text search LangChain, LangGraph, Mem0, SuperMemory, MCP adapters Confidence decay, Git backup, multi-agent sync MIT license, CI/CD, full README What's coming in v0.2.0 Feature What it does memory.state_at(timestamp) Read memory as it was at any point in time Crypto-shredding Encrypt-on-write + key destruction for real GDPR compliance memory.export_state() Clean JSON snapshot of any memory bank memory.diff(from_ts, to_ts) Human-readable before/after between two timestamps Belief lineage Which downstream writes were caused by a bad early assumption Honest take This is v0.1.0. The core is solid but it's early. SQLite only for now — Postgres is planned. The adapters are sync-layer wrappers, not full replacements for Mem0 or SuperMemory. If you're running a hobby project with one agent — you probably don't need this yet. If you're running multiple long-lived agents, working in a regulated industry, or have already had a production incident you couldn't properly debug — this is for you. Looking for contributors The codebase is around 2000 lines. Every adapter follows the same BaseAdapter pattern so it's easy to get oriented. Good first issues are tagged on GitHub. Things I'd love help with: Postgres backend Crypto-shredding implementation memory.state_at(timestamp) Dashboard UI (FastAPI + SSE already in optional deps) Docs and examples Feedback Would love to hear from: Anyone running agents in healthcare / finance / legal Fleet operators with 5+ concurrent agents Anyone who's already built their own memory audit system and had to solve things I haven't thought of yet Brutal feedback welcome. That's the only way this gets better. GitHub: https://github.com/notmemory/notmemory PyPI: https://pypi.org/project/notmemory/ submitted by /u/imsuryya [link] [comments]
View originalSwitching from React Native + Node.js (4 YOE) to Agentic AI — need roadmap advice
I have 4 years of experience as a React Native and Node.js developer. I am comfortable with REST APIs, async/await, JSON, MongoDB, authentication, and shipping production apps. I am based in India. What I have learned so far: I recently completed an AI/LLM course that covered: • Pydantic (validation, models, serialization) • LLM theory (transformers, embeddings, attention, tokenization) • OpenAI and Gemini API integration • Prompt engineering (zero-shot, few-shot, CoT, persona prompting) • Prompt formats (ChatML, Alpaca, INST) • Ollama for local LLMs • FastAPI basics • Hugging Face model deployment • Agentic AI fundamentals — built a basic CLI coding agent What I understand conceptually: I understand that an AI agent = LLM brain + tools (Python functions) + agent loop + memory (messages list). I understand RAG, vector databases, the difference between fine-tuning and RAG, and how to structure a backend with Node.js calling a Python AI agent service when needed. What I want to do: I want to transition into Agentic AI / AI Engineer roles in India. I am not looking to become an ML researcher or train models. I want to build production AI agent systems — connecting LLMs to real business data, building tools, RAG pipelines, and shipping real products. My specific questions: 1. Is my current foundation strong enough to start building real agent projects or do I have gaps I am missing? 2. What should my learning roadmap look like for the next 3–6 months given my background? 3. Which frameworks should I prioritise — raw OpenAI API first, then LangChain/LangGraph, or jump straight to frameworks? 4. What kind of projects should I build for a strong portfolio targeting ₹20–35 LPA roles in India? 5. Any specific subreddits, communities, or resources beyond YouTube that helped you in this transition? My planned first 3 projects: • Simple agent with web search + calculator tool (no DB) • Agent connected to MongoDB with RAG • Full FastAPI backend wrapping the agent with a React frontend Any advice from people who have made a similar switch or are hiring in this space would be really helpful. Thanks. submitted by /u/rohitrai0101rm [link] [comments]
View originalLearn Agentic AI with quick, easy to run hands on labs, visual canvases and notebooks for free!
If you’re a full-stack engineer or technical architect willing to learn production-grade enterprise agents, you need architecture, security, and type-safe systems. That’s why we builtAgentSwarms.fyi—the ultimate hands-on educational platform for teaching agentic AI and multi-agent workflows. 🚀 The Core AgentSwarms Ecosystem: Real-World Architectures: Skip the generic hello-world loops. Learn production-grade systems like human-in-the-loop validation, automated multi-platform content multiplexers, and secure code-sandbox environments. Deterministic Cloud Guardrails: Deep dives into multi-cloud token economics, dynamic cost-optimized routing, and model evaluation metrics. Grassroots Engineering Focus: No corporate marketing fluff. Just raw, practical code patterns designed to bridge the gap between fragile prototypes and stable cloud deployments. 💣 The New Drop: 60+ Browser-Native TypeScript Notebooks We just completely re-engineered our learning workspace. We’ve added 60+ fully interactive TypeScript Notebooks running 100% natively in your browser. No pip install dependency hell, no local Docker setup, and zero environment friction. Read the architecture, tweak the system prompts or Zod schemas, hit play, and watch the streaming terminal execute live across the five absolute best frameworks in the ecosystem: 🟢 LangChain.js (Fundamentals & Middleware Guardrails) 🔀 LangGraph.js (Cyclic Graphs & Stateful Orchestration) 💾 LlamaIndex.ts (Sentence-Window Retrieval & RAG Triad Evals) ⚡ Vercel AI SDK (Streaming UI Integration) 🤖 OpenAI Agents SDK (Lightweight, low-boilerplate loops) Stop passively scrolling through video courses. Open a canvas, break the graph nodes, and start compiling real multi-agent swarms. 👉 Dive in for free: agentswarms.fyi/learn submitted by /u/Outside-Risk-8912 [link] [comments]
View originalLearn Agentic AI with quick, easy to run hands on labs, visual canvases and notebooks for free!
If you’re a full-stack engineer or technical architect willing to learn production-grade enterprise agents, you need architecture, security, and type-safe systems. That’s why we builtAgentSwarms.fyi—the ultimate hands-on educational platform for teaching agentic AI and multi-agent workflows. 🚀 The Core AgentSwarms Ecosystem: Real-World Architectures: Skip the generic hello-world loops. Learn production-grade systems like human-in-the-loop validation, automated multi-platform content multiplexers, and secure code-sandbox environments. Deterministic Cloud Guardrails: Deep dives into multi-cloud token economics, dynamic cost-optimized routing, and model evaluation metrics. Grassroots Engineering Focus: No corporate marketing fluff. Just raw, practical code patterns designed to bridge the gap between fragile prototypes and stable cloud deployments. 💣 The New Drop: 60+ Browser-Native TypeScript Notebooks We just completely re-engineered our learning workspace. We’ve added 60+ fully interactive TypeScript Notebooks running 100% natively in your browser. No pip install dependency hell, no local Docker setup, and zero environment friction. Read the architecture, tweak the system prompts or Zod schemas, hit play, and watch the streaming terminal execute live across the five absolute best frameworks in the ecosystem: 🟢 LangChain.js (Fundamentals & Middleware Guardrails) 🔀 LangGraph.js (Cyclic Graphs & Stateful Orchestration) 💾 LlamaIndex.ts (Sentence-Window Retrieval & RAG Triad Evals) ⚡ Vercel AI SDK (Streaming UI Integration) 🤖 OpenAI Agents SDK (Lightweight, low-boilerplate loops) Stop passively scrolling through video courses. Open a canvas, break the graph nodes, and start compiling real multi-agent swarms. 👉 Dive in for free: agentswarms.fyi/learn submitted by /u/Outside-Risk-8912 [link] [comments]
View originalGuidance please
I need help . pls help ! Actually im beginner to Ai /ML , i started Langchain , RAG idk if i'm going right or wrong ,its like im just going with flow and felt like im just learning a wrapper of real model . can anyone suggest me any course, advice,roadmap for Ai/ML , i saw andrej karpathy’s channel looks lil complex to me and saw many yt channels on ML , LLM AND THOSE WERE BASIC , like structure of ANN, RNN etc i want pure depth knowledge submitted by /u/No-Yam3698 [link] [comments]
View originalWe built a source-available LLM reliability library (free for research / personal / internal eval) that can cut inference cost by half at matched quality, and you adopt it by changing one import [P] [R]
TL;DR: Reliability techniques (methods that boost an LLM's correctness by spending extra inference, e.g., retries with feedback, ensembling, generator/critic refinement, verification passes, difficulty-aware routing) are scattered across the literature, each in its own paper-specific codebase. We unified 28 reliability techniques (21 communication-theoretic methods across 6 families plus 7 prior-method baselines: Self-Consistency, Self-Refine, CoVe, BoN, Weighted BoN, CISC, MoA), each measured against an uncoded single-pass baseline, under a single API, with 3 adaptive routers (SemKNN + two local ACM routers) sitting on top, then showed that routing the technique adaptively per prompt lets you slide along a quality/cost frontier. In our paper benchmark with one specific lineup, Nemotron + Devstral as the two generators and GLM-5.1 as the judge, the adaptive router delivered ~56% cost reduction at matched quality, or ~7% quality bump at matched cost, vs the best fixed method we compared against at that same lineup. One knob (λ) does the sliding. The qualitative pattern (adaptive beats fixed) should generalize, but absolute numbers are lineup-specific, and we haven't run the full sweep across other model combinations yet. Adoption is change one import: python - from openai import OpenAI + from agentcodec.openai import OpenAI Pass reliability="harq_ir" (or any of the 28 techniques) and existing client.chat.completions.create(...) calls keep their native OpenAI response shape. Same drop-in shims for Anthropic and Ollama. GitHub: https://github.com/intellerce/agentcodec Working paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09121 After spending a while researching reliability methods from papers, we kept hitting the same wall: every paper ships its own one-off codebase with its own prompt format, its own scoring rubric, its own model wrapper. Benchmarking "should we use self-refine or best-of-N here?" turned into a week of plumbing per comparison. The communication-theory framing is what tied it together: an LLM is a stochastic channel Y = A(X) + N, and every reliability technique from the wireless world has a direct analog in agent-land: Wireless Agent-land ARQ / HARQ retry-with-feedback loops Diversity combining (MRC/SC/EGC) ensemble multiple models Turbo decoding iterative generator/critic mutual refinement Fountain codes rateless sampling, stop when the judge is confident FEC answer + structured parity passes (re-derivation, verification, alternative), decode by cross-check ACM (adaptive coding-modulation) route by difficulty We put all of them in one library: 28 reliability techniques (the 7 prior-method baselines are part of that 28, not on top of it), plus the uncoded single-pass baseline they're all measured against, plus 3 adaptive routers (SemKNN + two local ACM routers) that select a technique per prompt. Full breakdown in the README. The minimal version ```python from agentcodec import ReliabilityModule mod = ReliabilityModule.from_dict({ "models": [ # Spatial diversity: two different families = uncorrelated errors {"model": "qwen3:8b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, {"model": "llama3.1:8b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, ], "judge": {"model": "gemma3:12b", "base_url": "http://localhost:11434/v1", "api_key": "ollama"}, "critic": {"same": True}, "strategy": {"type": "fixed", "technique": "harq_ir", "params": {"max_rounds": 4}}, }) result = mod.run("Prove the sum of the first n odd integers is n2.", category="reasoning") print(result.text, result.cost_usd, result.cost_source, result.technique_used) ``` Swap "harq_ir" for "diversity_mrc", "turbo", "fountain", etc. Same API, same ReliabilityResult shape, same cost-source tier on every output. For production, flip strategy to routed and the library picks the technique per prompt (cheap baseline on easy prompts, diversity_mrc on hard ones). Three things worth calling out Beyond the technique catalog, three pieces of the implementation that took real work: 1. Native async streaming for all but 2 techniques (acm_soft, acm_learned), with role-tagged events. mod.astream() drives AsyncOpenAI / AsyncAnthropic / httpx.AsyncClient end-to-end (no worker-thread bridge) and emits TokenEvents tagged with a role: "answer", "thinking", "draft", "critique", "verification", "candidate", "synthesis". So when you stream a HARQ-IR run, you can render the round-by-round drafts and critiques live, not just the final answer: python async for ev in mod.astream("Explain QUIC vs TCP."): if isinstance(ev, TokenEvent): if ev.role == "answer": print(ev.text, end="", flush=True) elif ev.role == "draft": print(f"\n[draft] {ev.text}") elif ev.role == "critique": print(f"\n[CRITIC] {ev.text}") elif ev.role == "thinking": pass # captured to result.thinking_text elif isinstance(ev, FinalEvent): print(f"\ndone — {ev.result.technique_used}, " f"thinking_cost=${ev.result.thinking_cost_usd:.4f}
View original95% of the agents posted here would be dead within 24 hours of real production traffic and it's not the model's fault
I've spent 18 months building agent infrastructure and watched a lot of impressive demos. Here's the uncomfortable pattern: the demo works beautifully, the founder posts it, everyone claps and then it touches real users and quietly dies. Not because GPT-5 / Claude / whatever isn't smart enough. The model is almost never the problem anymore. It dies for three boring reasons nobody wants to talk about because they're not sexy: 1. AMNESIA. Your agent forgets everything the moment the process restarts. Crash, redeploy, pod cycle gone. So everyone hacks together a pickle file or a Postgres table, and it works until they have more than one agent and the memory needs to be shared. Then it's a mess. 2. SUICIDE BY LOOP. An agent has no idea it's in a loop. It will call the same tool with the same args 400 times and cheerfully burn $200 of tokens overnight, because it has no metacognition. It literally cannot detect its own failure. The defense has to live OUTSIDE the agent and almost nobody builds that. 3. NO BLACK BOX. The agent does something weird in front of a customer. They ask "why did it do that?" and you stare at logs that show inputs and outputs but no chain of reasoning. You have no answer. Trust evaporates. The whole industry is obsessed with the brain (the model and ignoring the nervous) system (memory, the immune system (loop detection), and the flight recorder (audit).) The unsexy truth: the next wave of agent winners won't have better prompts. They'll have better infrastructure. The model is commoditising. The reliability layer is where the actual moat is. I got annoyed enough about this that I built the layer myself persistent memory, automatic loop detection, and a tamper-evident audit trail, framework-agnostic (LangChain/CrewAI/AutoGen/OpenAI/MCP. It's at) octopodas.com if you want to tear it apart genuinely want feedback from people who've shipped agents and hit this wall. But honestly even if you never touch my thing: stop optimising the prompt and start thinking about what happens when your agent restarts, loops, or gets asked "why." submitted by /u/DetectiveMindless652 [link] [comments]
View originalLooking to work on my master's practicum regarding MCP security/privacy and need some ideas
Hi, I'm a master's in security student looking to work on my practicum and need some pointers. I want to secure sensitive PII transfer between an LLM agent and third party apps using MCP. I want to work with Claude, but need a third party app to work with on this. I want to solve problems like prompt injection via cascading agents exploitation. Deliverable wise, I'm thinking it should be some sort of application that can red-team the architectural set-up and ensure no data is being leaked or can be prompt injected. Some questions for you: What third party app do you recommend where I can really strengthen an MCP server and the transfer of sensitive data between Claude and the third party app? What other tools will I need to work with to set the agents up? I've heard of Langchain and Langgraph. How exactly do I work with MCPs in this context? Again I'm very new to all this! Thank you for your help! submitted by /u/ExcellentComment6615 [link] [comments]
View originalig nobody is talking about the real reason most AI agents fail in the real world
we spend a lot of time in this community talking about capabilities. context windows, reasoning benchmarks, multi-step tool use, how well a model can write code or pass a bar exam. i'm not dismissing any of that. capabilities matter. but when i look at AI products failing in production, the capability of the model is almost never the issue. ive been building and consulting on AI agents for about 18 months. the failure modes i see constantly are: users do not go where the agent lives. the agent has a beautiful web interface. the user visits it twice and stops. not because the agent was unhelpful. because opening a browser tab is a cognitive action that requires intention, and most of daily life does not create the right moment for that intention. humans do not change their behavior to accommodate useful tools. useful tools have to show up in the behavior humans already have. the agent is reactive when it needs to be proactive. the smartest human assistant you have ever had did not just answer questions. they showed up. they flagged things before you asked. they sent you the thing you did not know you needed. most AI agents are search bars with a personality. they wait. waiting is not intelligence in practice. intelligence in practice is noticing and acting. the agent has no memory of who you are. you tell it your preferences, your context, your situation, and then come back 3 days later and it knows nothing. this is not a model limitation. the model can remember if you feed it the right context. this is an architecture choice that most teams make wrong because they are thinking about sessions instead of relationships. the agents that are succeeding in production are not necessarily the ones with the best models. they are the ones that live in whatsapp and imessage and telegram where users already are. that proactively reach out when something relevant happens. that maintain coherent memory of the person across weeks and months of conversation. the tooling to build this way exists now. agno and langchain for orchestration, photon codes for the cross channel messaging surface, langfuse for traces and memory debugging, good persistence in postgres or supabase. the architecture is not magic. what is still rare is the mindset of treating the channel and the memory as primary constraints rather than afterthoughts. i think the gap between what AI agents can theoretically do and what they actually do for people in their daily lives is almost entirely a distribution and persistence problem, not a capability problem. we are solving for the wrong thing. submitted by /u/bcoz_why_not__ [link] [comments]
View originalAfter 6 months of running AI agents in production I think the framework you pick barely matters. The thing that kills them is something else.
Going to get downvoted for this but here we go. I've been running about 30 agents in production for paying customers for the last 6 months and I'm convinced the framework debate is mostly a distraction. LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen, OpenAI Agents SDK. Pick whichever one your team already knows. It doesn't matter as much as you think. What actually decides whether your agent works in production is something almost nobody talks about on this sub, and it isn't in the framework. Here's what I've seen kill more agents than every framework bug combined. The agent gets stuck in a loop. It calls the same tool 200 times in 4 minutes because something downstream returned ambiguous data and the LLM decided to retry forever. Your OpenAI bill goes from $3 a day to $400 in one afternoon. By the time you notice you've burned a grand. You can't even tell which agent did it because there's no audit trail. Your VPS reboots overnight for kernel patches. Every agent that was mid-task loses everything. Tomorrow morning the support agent has no memory of yesterday's tickets, the research crew has forgotten what they were investigating, the pipeline agent restarts from scratch. None of these are framework problems. They're memory and state problems. A customer complains the agent gave them wrong info three days ago. You go to debug. There's no record of what the agent saw, what it decided, or which tool calls it made. The framework didn't log that because frameworks aren't observability tools. You shrug and refund. You scaled to 15 agents working together. Two of them have conflicting beliefs about the same customer because their memory isn't shared. The customer gets two different answers in the same conversation depending on which agent replies first. You've been around enough times to realize the part you actually need isn't in the framework at all. What I think the real stack is. The framework just orchestrates LLM calls. Use whatever your team likes. It's the cheap layer. A persistent memory layer that survives crashes, restarts, and redeploys, so the agent has actual continuity. This is the layer that decides whether your agent is a toy or a product. Loop detection at the runtime layer, not bolted on as a wrapper around the framework. Something that catches your agent making the same call too many times in a row and stops it before the bill explodes. An audit trail of every decision the agent made, with a hash chain so you can prove later what happened when the customer pushes back. Screenshots and logs aren't enough when ten thousand dollars is on the line. Shared memory between agents in the same team so they're not having different conversations about the same customer. Cost tracking per agent so you actually know which one ran away with your budget. When I look at what makes the agents that survive production look different from the ones that died, it's never that they picked the right framework. It's that they had this layer underneath, either built carefully in-house or borrowed from somewhere. Full disclosure I'm building one of these tools. There are others. Mem0 and Zep and Letta in the memory space. Helicone and LangSmith in the observability space. Mix and match. Use one or build your own. Just please stop arguing about whether LangChain or CrewAI is better when the thing eating your production agents has nothing to do with either of them. What's been your worst production agent failure? Curious what other people have actually hit. I built a free tool that aims to solve most of this issue, what do you think? submitted by /u/DetectiveMindless652 [link] [comments]
View originalYour AI agent is one poisoned webpage away from doing something catastrophic
If your agent browses the web, reads emails, or pulls from a database — any of that content can contain hidden instructions that hijack it. This isn’t theoretical. It’s happening in production right now. A webpage footer tells your agent to forward credentials. An email signature tells it to ignore its guidelines. A retrieved document tells it to change behavior. The model has no idea the content isn’t a legitimate instruction. The fix isn’t better prompt filtering. It’s source-aware authority enforcement. Every content chunk should carry a trust level. Webpages, emails, tool outputs — zero instruction authority. They can provide data. They cannot tell your agent what to do. That’s what Arc Gate does. It sits between your app and your LLM and enforces instruction-authority boundaries at the proxy level. When untrusted content tries to become an instruction source, it gets blocked or sandboxed before the model ever sees it. One line to try it: from langchain\_arcgate import ArcGateCallback from langchain\_openai import ChatOpenAI llm = ChatOpenAI(callbacks=\[ArcGateCallback(api\_key="demo")\]) Live red team environment: https://web-production-6e47f.up.railway.app/break-arc-gate GitHub: https://github.com/9hannahnine-jpg/arc-gate Looking for teams actively deploying agents who want to test this on real workloads. Free access in exchange for feedback. submitted by /u/Turbulent-Tap6723 [link] [comments]
View originalRepository Audit Available
Deep analysis of langchain-ai/langchain — architecture, costs, security, dependencies & more
Yes, LangChain offers a free tier. Pricing found: $0 / seat, $39 / seat, $39, $0.005 / deployment, $0.0007 / min
LangChain has an average rating of 4.6 out of 5 stars based on 20 reviews from G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius.
Key features include: LangSmith Agent Engineering Platform, Understand exactly what your agent is doing, Use real-world usage for iterative improvement, Ship and scale agents in production, Agents for the whole company, Build with our open source frameworks.
LangChain is commonly used for: Building autonomous AI agents, Creating multi-agent systems for complex tasks, Implementing real-time monitoring and observability for agents, Developing no-code agent builders for non-technical users, Integrating AI agents into existing enterprise workflows, Testing and debugging AI agents in production environments.
LangChain integrates with: OpenAI, AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Platform, Microsoft Azure, Slack, Zapier, Twilio, Salesforce, Jira, GitHub.
Mckay Wrigley
Builder at Takeoff AI
1 mention
LangChain has a public GitHub repository with 131,755 stars.
Based on user reviews and social mentions, the most common pain points are: cost tracking, token usage, openai bill, API costs.
Based on 54 social mentions analyzed, 9% of sentiment is positive, 89% neutral, and 2% negative.