Agent Learning Kit
Local-first simulation, evaluation, red teaming, and optimization for AI agents.
- Source repo
- future-agi/agent-learning-kit
- Stars
- ★ 128
- Last updated
- 3d ago
- License
- NOASSERTION
- Primary language
- Python
- FA score
- 38/100 · Major gaps
At a glance
- How it runs
- Works with
- Universal · cross-platform
- Cost
- Free software; you pay for model usage
- Setup effort
- Low · running in minutes
- You'll need
- Typical use
- A developer building a LangChain or LangGraph agent who wants offline task simulation and regression replay before pushing to CI.
- Not a fit if
- Teams wanting a GUI-only hosted testing platform out of the box
- Teams needing coverage of frameworks not named in the README
- Small teams unwilling to maintain a dual Python + TypeScript local toolchain
- Source review
- 38/100 · Major gaps
What does this agent do, and when should you use it?
Agent Learning Kit is Future AGI's local-first SDK and CLI for testing, simulating, red-teaming, and optimizing AI agents. It collapses three engines — simulate, evals, and optimize — onto one public developer surface, with red teaming running on the simulate and evals engines rather than as a fourth engine. The Python package is agent-learning-kit, the namespace is fi.alk, the CLI is agent-learn, and a TypeScript package ships as @future-agi/agent-learning-kit. Its loop is simulate a workflow, evaluate the behavior and runtime evidence, optimize the weak layer, promote the result into a replayable artifact, then prove release readiness with local gates. The documented quickstart runs fully offline with no API key or network; only platform-backed evaluation requires AGENT_LEARNING_API_KEY. The README states the v1 bar is the executable environment_10x_robustness release gate, so the shipped contract is locally verifiable rather than cloud-dependent.
It reads agent source, run manifests, evaluation suites, optimization manifests, and red-team manifests, executes tasks inside local worlds, and writes JSON artifacts. Concrete operations include driving a single SimulationSpec through a SimulationRunner as the plug-and-play simulation surface; evaluating prompts, task outputs, runtime contracts, traces, memory, retrieval, safety, and robustness evidence; searching over prompts, agents, framework adapters, worlds, multi-agent interactions, memory layers, workflows, and red-team scenarios; and emitting agent-learning.release-proof.v1 evidence via release-check and release-proof. The bundled harness under src/fi/alk/harness/ reads what an agent verifiably is, builds a real world its tools act on, and writes test scenarios that are each proved before being kept, driven as a conversation in a terminal or on a web page served at localhost:8777. Adapter coverage spans LangChain, LangGraph, LlamaIndex, AutoGen, CrewAI, LiveKit, Pipecat, Browser Use, MCP, A2A, and custom orchestration objects, with runtime-simulated coverage for PydanticAI and handoff-transcript promotion for OpenAI Agents.
- A developer building a LangChain or LangGraph agent who wants offline task simulation and regression replay before pushing to CI.
- A team that needs repeatable tests for multi-agent coordination and handoff logic instead of manual trial runs.
- A security engineer red-teaming agents with corpora, campaigns, and adaptive loops without sending data to a third-party cloud.
- A release engineer who needs the local gate evidence that agent-learn release-proof writes as sign-off material.
- A team tuning retrieval or memory layers that wants evaluation results for both inside the same artifact model.
- An integration team that wants voice, realtime, browser/CUA, workflow, lifecycle, and protocol traces evaluated together.
How do you install or deploy this agent?
Install from PyPI:
pip install agent-learning-kitOptional extras:
pip install "agent-learning-kit[livekit]"
pip install "agent-learning-kit[nli]"
pip install "agent-learning-kit[all]"To develop against source:
git clone https://github.com/future-agi/agent-learning-kit
cd agent-learning-kit
uv sync # or: pip install -e .The TypeScript package (npm publishing lands at the v1 launch; today build from typescript/agent-learning-kit):
pnpm add @future-agi/agent-learning-kitHow do you use this agent?
Start with the local doctor to confirm the environment:
agent-learn doctorEvaluate a suite:
agent-learn eval examples/eval_suite.json \
--output artifacts/eval.jsonSimulate a run manifest:
AGENT_LEARNING_RUN_EXAMPLE_KEY=offline-demo-key \
agent-learn run examples/run_manifest.json \
--no-eval \
--output artifacts/run.jsonOptimize an agent workflow:
AGENT_LEARNING_OPTIMIZE_EXAMPLE_KEY=offline-demo-key \
agent-learn optimize examples/optimization_manifest.json \
--output artifacts/optimization.jsonRun a red-team campaign:
AGENT_LEARNING_REDTEAM_EXAMPLE_KEY=offline-demo-key \
agent-learn redteam examples/redteam_manifest.json \
--output artifacts/redteam.jsonCut local release proof:
agent-learn release-check --project-root .
agent-learn release-proof \
--project-root . \
--output /tmp/agent-learning-release-proof.json \
--quietFor Future AGI platform-backed evaluation, set AGENT_LEARNING_API_KEY (it takes precedence over the FUTURE_AGI_API_KEY and FI_API_KEY aliases) or call configure from code:
from fi.alk import configure
configure(api_key="...")On the TypeScript side, import the evaluator surfaces:
import { Evaluator } from "@future-agi/agent-learning-kit";
import { LocalEvaluator } from "@future-agi/agent-learning-kit/evals/local";What are this agent's strengths and limitations?
- Fully offline by default: every quickstart command runs without an API key or network, which suits restricted networks and data-egress-sensitive teams.
- One artifact model unifies simulate, evals, and optimize, so a simulation can be scored, optimized, and promoted into a replayable artifact in a single loop.
- The same CLI covers redteam and release-proof, and release-proof emits structured agent-learning.release-proof.v1 evidence usable as release sign-off.
- The bundled harness reads agent source, builds a world its tools act on, and writes scenarios that are proved before being kept, cutting manual suite authoring.
- Adapter coverage is explicitly enumerated: LangChain, LangGraph, LlamaIndex, AutoGen, CrewAI, LiveKit, Pipecat, Browser Use, MCP, A2A, and custom orchestration objects.
- The TypeScript SDK (@future-agi/agent-learning-kit) was not yet published to npm at the time of writing, so it must be built from typescript/agent-learning-kit source.
- Using Future AGI platform-backed evaluation requires AGENT_LEARNING_API_KEY, tying that path to the vendor's cloud.
- It maintains both a Python toolchain (uv/pip/pytest/ruff) and a TypeScript toolchain (pnpm), raising CI and local environment overhead.
- The GitHub license metadata reports NOASSERTION while the README points to Apache-2.0 and NOTICE, so adopting teams should confirm the terms themselves.
- OpenEnv/Gymnasium shapes are compatibility inputs only; teams with existing assets in those shapes face extra migration work.
How does this agent compare with similar options?
Key facts side by side with the most closely related agents.
| Agent | Source review | Form / cost | Stars | Updated | Language | Full support on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agent Learning Kit This agent | 38 · Major gaps | CLIFree + model costs | ★ 128 | 3d ago | Python | — |
| Rogue — AI Agent Evaluator & Red Team Platform | 43 · Major gaps | CLIFree + model costs | ★ 1.1k | 5mo ago | Python | OpenAI API · Claude API |
| RAMPART | 51 · Major gaps | Library / SDKFree + model costs | ★ 421 | 4d ago | Python | — |
| IntellAgent: Simulate, Analyze, and Optimize Conversational Agents | 33 · Major gaps | CLIFree + model costs | ★ 1.3k | 1mo ago | Python | OpenAI API · Claude API |
How does FollowAgents rate this agent?
Why each dimension lost points
Evidence shows least-privilege CI (contents: read; id-token: write scoped to the publish job), PyPI trusted publishing behind manual approval environments, a SECURITY.md with reporting channel and response windows, bounded dependency ranges with version-verification comments, and a bandit config stating sandbox executors use list-args rather than shell=True. Deductions are concrete: neither README nor code documents the data flow after the harness reads a target agent's source; telemetry/ledger writing to ~/.agent-learning/ledger is on by default and only isolated inside tests, with no user-facing confirmation or rollback guidance; the dependency set is large (litellm, torch, transformers, chromadb) with no SBOM or vulnerability-scan evidence; and the release pipeline pushes changes into future-agi/deployment without user-facing disclosure of that external effect. Hence 1 across the board.
README describes doctor, release-check and release-proof self-checks, pyproject bounds most dependencies with rationale comments, and test fixtures explicitly isolate the ledger and pin sync mode to local to avoid surprise network emits. Deductions: no static evidence shows the shape or classification of failure messages; dependency availability rests on comments (e.g. the pipecat floor explanation) rather than a lock file or resolution proof; and the claim that all v1 gates are green on the proved release commit cannot be checked because the release-proof artifact is not in evidence. All three criteria score 1.
README names the audience (developers), the scenarios (simulate, evaluate, optimize, red-team) and the framework adapters (LangChain, LlamaIndex, AutoGen, CrewAI, LiveKit, MCP, A2A, and more), and distinguishes offline local mode from platform mode, so audience_and_scenarios earns 2. Deductions: capability_boundaries are only gestured at with 'OpenEnv/Gymnasium shapes are compatibility inputs, not the product center' and no systematic statement of what is unsupported; trigger_precision is absent — nothing defines when to invoke which command or what triggers the harness; environment_fit states only Python >=3.10 plus optional extras, leaving OS, container runtime (Docker/E2B/Daytona) and resource requirements unstated. The remaining three score 1.
Information architecture is clear: README provides a repository map, docs index, library inventory and roadmap links; install notes cover PyPI, source development, optional extras and the TypeScript package; the license field matches the Apache-2.0 LICENSE file. Those three earn 2. Deductions: naming stability is at risk because npm publishing is deferred to 'the v1 launch' while the README already presents the package name, so published state and documented state diverge; examples_and_faq lists commands but offers no FAQ or sample output; known_limitations exist only as scattered comments (e.g. the pipecat version constraint) with no consolidated section; versioning_changelog only links CHANGELOG.md, whose contents are not in evidence, and version 0.3.2 sits in tension with 'all v1 gates are green'; maintenance_responsibility rests on an unverified publisher and an internal-docs repository that outsiders cannot inspect. Those score 1.
README presents a coherent loop from simulation through evaluation, optimization and red-teaming to release proof, with copy-pasteable commands, giving output_usability and marginal_value some footing. Deductions are explicit: every command's output is a single 'wrote <path>' line with no artifact structure or readability shown; differentiation from existing tools such as promptfoo is asserted as 'one artifact model' without comparative evidence; and cost_benefit is unaddressed — the dependency footprint (torch, transformers, chromadb, the livekit stack) is heavy while the benefit is a feature list with no resource or runtime figures. All three score 1.
README leans on strong assertions — 'proved', 'all v1 gates are green', 'probe-promoted coverage' — but the release-proof artifact, test results and coverage data are absent from this evidence, so claim_traceability scores 1. For cross-source corroboration, the README repository map broadly matches pyproject package paths and script entry points, and SECURITY.md echoes README links, yet the load-bearing claims (v1 gates, certified template, release proof) cannot be checked against any other file, so it scores 1. For fact/inference separation, README blends roadmap status ('mostly complete', 'in progress') with a frozen contract and states 'all v1 gates are green' as a conclusion without supporting evidence, so it scores 1.
- Strong README assertions such as 'all v1 gates are green' and 'the proved release commit' ship without the release-proof artifact, so a static review cannot confirm them; run release-proof yourself and inspect the output before relying on it.
- Telemetry and the run ledger write to ~/.agent-learning/ledger by default and are isolated only inside tests; confirm the data flow, whether anything leaves the machine, and how to disable or purge it before production use.
- The harness reads the target agent's source and may stand up containers and stores (Docker, E2B, Daytona, Postgres); permission and network boundaries need separate assessment, and the repository offers no user-facing confirmation or rollback guidance.
- The dependency set is large and includes heavy components (torch, transformers, litellm, chromadb) with no SBOM or vulnerability-scan evidence; pin and scan dependencies in a controlled environment.
- The release workflow pushes changes into the future-agi/deployment repository and depends on organization-level secrets (RELEASE_BOT_*, E2B_API_KEY, DAYTONA_API_KEY); external users cannot verify what those pipelines actually did.
- Publisher identity is unverified by the FollowAgents registry, and the package name conflicts with the deferred npm publishing state ('at the v1 launch'); confirm provenance and version before installing.
Recent releases
Latest entries from the project's GitHub Releases. Notes are quoted from upstream as written, not rewritten or tested by FollowAgents.
-
ts-v0.2.0 @future-agi/ai-evaluation (TypeScript) 0.2.0
-
py-v1.1.0 ai-evaluation (Python) 1.1.0
-
Release notes excerpt
Unified evaluate() API — One function for all evaluation needs. Local metrics, cloud templates, and LLM-as-judge through a single entrypoint. ```python …View on GitHub ↗