draismaa
The problem it's solving: teams building AI agents are fully in their coding assistant, but evaluation still requires logging into a separate platform, learning a new UI, and context-switching. The MCP closes that gap. What you can do from within your editor:
Ask your AI assistant to instrument your existing code with LangWatch tracing (it fetches the docs, adds imports, wraps functions with @langwatch.trace()) Generate simulation-based agent tests using Scenario — describe the behavior in plain English and it writes the pytest file
Search and inspect live traces from your project without touching the dashboard
Version and sync prompts to LangWatch's registry
Query cost/latency analytics in natural language
Set up LLM-as-a-judge evaluators that can gate CI/CD
Three real-world cases from the blog post:
A PM at an HR/payroll platform generated 63 agent test scenarios across 11 categories (happy paths, edge cases, wage tax mutations) in a single Claude conversation — no code written by hand.
A Senior AI Engineer migrated an entire Langfuse implementation to LangWatch in one session: Claude read the existing integration, rewired tracing, converted Jinja prompts to versioned YAML, and scaffolded model benchmarking notebooks comparing GPT-4o, Gemini, and Anthropic models.
A Dutch government AI team (LangGraph, multi-agent grant assessment system) used the MCP to build a full testing pyramid: end-to-end scenario tests, model comparison notebooks, and CI-gated quality evaluators before they'd written a single line of eval code themselves.
Setup is one line: claude mcp add langwatch -- npx -y @langwatch/mcp-server --apiKey your-key Docs: https://langwatch.ai/docs/integration/mcp
Curious if others are building MCP-powered eval workflows. The self-instrumenting agent angle (agents setting up their own observability while being built) is something we've been exploring and it gets weird fast.
Pretty amazing into running simulations at scale
This weekend contributors from LangWatch, Orq, and Red Hat collaborated to add native OpenTelemetry instrumentation to OpenClaw, including support for the OTEL GenAI semantic conventions.
You can now trace agent execution steps, LLM calls, tool usage, and token-level costs in a standard OTEL pipeline instead of custom logging.
Setup guide: https://langwatch.ai/blog/instrumenting-your-openclaw-agent-...
+ PR here: https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/pull/11100
Happy to answer questions about the approach and what’s coming next.
The idea: if you wouldn’t deploy an autonomous vehicle without simulation, why would you deploy an AI agent without pressure-testing it first?
Scenario lets you: Describe multi-turn user flows (e.g. “book a flight and cancel it”) Set success criteria ("user got confirmation + refund info") Have one agent simulate the user, testing how another agent performs the task Debug regressions, track failures, iterate on behavior
It’s like writing unit tests, but for conversations.
Why? Traditional evals fall short when testing multi-step flows, memory handling, tool use, or goal alignment. Inspired by simulation in autonomous vehicle testing, where cars are exposed to rare, edge-case situations at scale, Scenario allows similar validation loops for AI agents.
Instead of hoping your support bot or agent workflow handles complexity… you simulate it:
Works with any agent-framework you define
Minimal setup required. There are a few starter examples in the repo: https://github.com/langwatch/scenario
We’d love feedback from the HN community:
What test patterns do you (want to) use for agent workflows?
Thanks!
If there are any users/customers around here, we provide full migration support from any platform (but also Humanloop :)) contact @ (langwatch.ai)
cheers
Agent simulations = unit testing for AI?
In traditional software, we write unit tests to catch regressions before they reach users. In AI systems—especially agentic ones that model breaks down. You can test inputs and outputs, use evals, but agents operate over time, across tools, mcps, apis, and unpredictable user input. The failure modes are non-obvious and often emerge only in edge cases. I'm seeing an emerging practice: agent...
We hit a wall testing AI agents, agents simulations works better
We've been working with teams building AI agents (agentic systems, with actual execution) But here's the thing: everyone says “agents are the future,” yet no one really knows how to test them. Some teams are manually walking through conversations, others are just shipping and "vibe checking" what comes back. Both break down at scale. The real problem? We’re testing agents like software, but...