Earlier quoted context omitted.
We do! We have combined experience as PMs, ml engs, and data scientists across many verticals. We also have experience helping PMs and AI eng teams build agents across over 100 customers from our first product. You're totally right, the analytics annotation primitives we detect (intents, corrections, resolutions) are the cornerstone to all the other analysis in our platform. It's critical that we get those right or a…
Your response is AI. It's a bit ai sloppy as well. Sorry to say that. But as a business owner you can and should do better.
Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
We get this question a lot! We work hand-in-hand with obs tools like Langfuse. Langfuse is great for debugging technical issues on individual traces like timing conditions that resulted in failed API calls. Voker focuses on product, business and user outcomes - like what intents did the user bring to your agent that you might not expect. We're built for the whole product team, whereas Langfuse focuses on engineers sp…
For instance, I have intent classifiers running on my traces and most tools offer some sort of analysis agents or API so it's claude sdk and go. Maybe let's take Langsmith. Now I know my gripes with that product. How do you see it? What do you add, specifically?
Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
We get this question a lot! We work hand-in-hand with obs tools like Langfuse. Langfuse is great for debugging technical issues on individual traces like timing conditions that resulted in failed API calls. Voker focuses on product, business and user outcomes - like what intents did the user bring to your agent that you might not expect. We're built for the whole product team, whereas Langfuse focuses on engineers sp…
For instance, I have intent classifiers running on my traces and most tools offer some sort of analysis agents or API so it's claude sdk and go. Maybe let's take Langsmith. Now I know my gripes with that product. How do you see it? What do you add, specifically?
Nice, sounds like you've set up your own solution in house. We definitely see some teams do that, and for some it works perfectly, for others, its too expensive to maintain - they get new requests for new dashboards or different subcuts of data from product or design teams, or they run into an issue like way too many intents generated to be useful, and its not worth the tradeoff of investing time in building internal tooling. But for some it makes sense to roll your own! It also really depends on how many people on the team are involved in building the agent products, and how much volume your agents have. If you have millions of conversations a month with thousands of unique intents, you have to set up data eng pipelines just to process categorize, and store all that data in a way thats usable for the whole team.
When it comes to Langsmith, we hear about them a lot from our customers, pretty much all of them love it as an obs tool, but most say that only the engineers have access or spend time in it, and they've told us the strength of Langsmith is its technical tracing, not its visualizations, ui, or usability. They've told us any "insights" are very canned (because thats not Langsmith's key focus).
We add self-serve analytics - like how Google Analytics lets marketers see how their website is performing without needing to ask engineers to write SQL queries on cloudwatch logs.
Ex: PM can self-serve and look at trends in what users are asking of agents, notice a problem, do a quick RCA, look for reproducibility across other sessions - before deciding to assign as an issue to engineer. Old way would be: PM hears a complaint from a customer, asks the engineer to "look into it" and the eng spends 4 hours combing through Langsmith logs to hunt down one session without even knowing if its actually a widespread issues
Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#24Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#25Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#26Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#27- To me, the line "Do you really know what your agents are saying to your users?" doesn't match at all with the screenshot directly above, which is the first screenshot on the page. On first glance, all that screenshot conveys to me is "some analytics app". Perhaps the first graphic could better express what about agents' activities, is being made easier to inspect.
- I click "How it Works" and I just get vaguely described screenshots. Only from reading the Python import line in the fourth screenshot, I get that it acts as a middleware by sitting in for the OpenAI import. Maybe this nav should link to the section above, with the 3 integration steps?
- Scrolling down and seeing Intents vs Corrections vs Resolutions, I'm actually getting a sense of what Voker does. To me, that still doesn't fully align with "Do you really know what your agents are saying to your users?"
- I'm mildly amused by the fact that whiteboard desk guy is copying roadmap suggestions from ChatGPT.
Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#28Re: Launch HN: Voker (YC S24) – Analytics for AI Agents
#29What's the data model that lets you compare agents that differ a lot in tools/policies? Curious if you normalize on the "what did the user actually accomplish" layer or on raw token/turn metrics, because the two paint completely different pictures of "is this agent working." We struggle with this on the eval side of our own product (email pipeline outcomes, not agents, but same shape).
For the agent working, we're focusing on the user outcome, we think that the raw usage, number of turns, function calls are useful operationally but think of those as more observability than the core evaluation target. We do show some of these stats in our conversation view but don't aggregate to compare agents. Longer term we will look to add in more of these features so we can compare quality vs cost, for example