mrkeyoor.com_
Fri 16 Oct 18:54 UTC
AI Toolsevaluationupdated 16 Oct 2026

ANOLISA review

ANOLISA is a collection of tools for running AI agents: it can compress tool output, add a terminal assistant, and provide tracing or execution controls. English and Chinese documentation explain how to adopt components separately, including adapters for Claude Code and OpenClaw.

-44stars / 7d
Verdict

Our ANOLISA ClawEval runner installed in 20 seconds and built in 1 second, but its test run reported 19 failures and 8 collection/setup errors. Adopt individual components only when their specific job matches yours, and treat the runner as an integration project requiring configuration and compatibility work. The measured Python path gives us no basis to promise compression savings or endorse the separate security runtime.

We ran it

Lab card: what happened when we ran ANOLISAScreenshot of ANOLISA (agentic-os.sh)
Install✓ · 20s86 packages · 148 MB
Build✓ · 1s
Tests✗ · 10s333 passed · 19 failed · 32 skipped · 8 errors of 360 (pytest)
Known vulns0(pip-audit)
Repo6665 files~1,967,683 lines of source · 115.7 MB · 26 CI workflows · tests dir

Answers from our run

Does ANOLISA build from source?

Dependencies installed in 20 seconds (86 packages), and the build succeeded in 1 seconds. We cloned commit 2c11ba6 into a clean Debian container with 3 CPUs and no project-specific setup.

Do ANOLISA's tests pass?

Not all of them: 333 of 360 passed and 19 failed when we ran the project's own test command (pytest), with 8 collection errors. Some failures need services or credentials a bare container does not have.

Does ANOLISA have known vulnerabilities in its dependencies?

pip-audit found none in the dependency tree at the time of our run.

Who should not use ANOLISA?

Windows users expecting a documented native path: the README advertises Linux and macOS.

What are the alternatives to ANOLISA?

RTK, Langfuse, Inspect. Our ANOLISA ClawEval runner installed in 20 seconds and built in 1 second, but its test run reported 19 failures and 8 collection/setup errors.

Setup2/5Runner needs gateway and model setup; system tools add privileges
Docs4/5English guides distinguish components, configuration, and system scope
Community4/5October 16 push and release, with active component issues and fixes
Maturity2/5Runner tests failed; broader runtime capabilities were not lab-verified

Discussed on

  1. hnShow HN: AgentSight – eBPF observability for AI agents, no code changes17 points
  2. hnAnolisa – Agentic OS with runtime, security, observability and token compression4 points

Who it’s for

Agent developers who want to try tool-output compression inside an existing Claude Code or OpenClaw workflow.
Linux operators who can support the privileges and kernel features needed by tracing and runtime components.
Evaluation engineers prepared to configure Docker, an OpenClaw gateway, and model access for the ClawEval runner.

Who it’s NOT for

Windows users expecting a documented native path: the README advertises Linux and macOS.
Teams restricted to unprivileged containers who need the whole runtime: the installation guide requires system scope for several components and checks eBPF, FUSE, or btrfs capabilities.
Developers expecting the ClawEval runner to produce graded tasks after a package install alone: its README requires Docker, OpenClaw, and explicit model and judge configuration.
Buyers looking for independently verified token savings here: our sandbox ran the Python evaluation component, not a Token-less cost comparison.

Setup reality

Our sandbox installed the Python ClawEval runner at commit 2c11ba6 in 20 seconds, adding 86 packages and using 148 MB. The build passed in 1 second. Tests failed after 10 seconds: 333 passed, 19 failed, 32 skipped, and 8 collection/setup errors. The tail shows missing claw-eval/config.yaml, an MCP process exiting immediately, and mcp.server.fastmcp import failures under MCP 2.x. Pip-audit reported 0 known vulnerabilities.

The measured project lives in benchmark/claweval-runner/, within a larger collection. Its documented setup needs Docker, Node, an OpenClaw gateway, model credentials, and task fixtures. Commands need an explicit configuration file argument unless model and judge settings are exported. The guide says model configuration is skipped when its API key is unset.

The wider product has separate component requirements. The installation guide checks eBPF, FUSE, and btrfs capabilities, and several components require sudo and system scope. Our unprivileged Python 3.12 run did not validate those services, the terminal assistant, or compression savings.

Choose an ANOLISA component before adopting the collection

ANOLISA lets you add tool-output compression to Claude Code without replacing your agent framework. That's its most approachable starting point: the README shows enabling the Token-less adapter, restarting Claude Code, and inspecting local statistics. The repository also contains a terminal assistant, persistent memory, workspace recovery, and agent tracing. Each capability has its own purpose. You need a specific problem before you need this whole collection.

Our measured path was much narrower: the Python project under benchmark/claweval-runner/, inside a checkout containing 6,665 files and roughly 1,967,683 source lines. GitHub identifies Rust as the repository's primary programming language. Both facts can be true because the lab ran a component. Its successful build doesn't verify the terminal, kernel tracing, or security runtime, and its failed tests don't establish that every other component is broken.

What happened when we ran it

Our run installed the ClawEval runner at commit 2c11ba6 in 20 seconds and built it in 1 second on October 12, 2026. Installation added 86 packages and occupied 148 MB. The fresh Debian container used Python 3.12 with uv, 3 CPUs, and 8 GB of RAM. It had no secrets or elevated privileges. Pip-audit reported 0 known vulnerabilities for the environment we measured.

The test command failed with exit code 1 after 10 seconds. The supplied results report 333 passed, 19 failed, 32 skipped, and 8 collection/setup errors. One environment assertion says claw-eval/config.yaml does not exist. A sandbox-discovery diagnostic says the MCP process exited immediately. Its stderr is truncated in the supplied tail, so the reason for that exit isn't established by the evidence available here.

Several schema-related failures report ModuleNotFoundError for mcp.server.fastmcp, with messages identifying MCP 2.x. Those failures concern parameter schemas and handler creation, including typed arrays and optional values. The log supports an import-compatibility problem in the measured environment. It doesn't justify blaming every failure on that import, or claiming that changing a package version would make the complete run pass. The missing configuration is a separate visible finding.

The runner needs Docker, OpenClaw, and explicit model configuration

The runner README at the measured commit describes an OpenClaw gateway and a running Docker daemon as prerequisites. Its setup script retrieves pinned claw-eval sources, configures the gateway, and prepares task fixtures. Model configuration requires a key. Run and batch commands need an explicit configuration argument unless the model and judge environment variables are exported. Copying a short task command alone doesn't provide that environment.

The 20-second package install and 1-second build therefore cover only part of getting a useful evaluation running. Documentation says the model-configuration step is skipped when its key is unset, and that the generated configuration file is not loaded automatically. Our no-secret sandbox found that file missing. Those facts describe the boundary clearly without proving exactly which setup actions preceded the assertion. Plan for a configured gateway and model access before expecting graded agent tasks.

Compression statistics don't establish lower total bills

Token-less removes redundant tool schemas and response fields before the model reads them, according to the README. Dropped array items remain accessible through retrieval markers. That mechanism gives you something concrete to evaluate: whether an agent can still recover the details its task needs. The project itself warns that savings on tool responses do not equal savings on the entire session bill. Keep that qualification beside any advertised percentage.

Our 148 MB runner environment supplies no independent evidence for Token-less savings or agent task quality. A useful trial would compare the same representative tasks with compression enabled and disabled, then inspect incorrect answers and recovered details alongside usage. That's a recommendation for your evaluation, not work our sandbox performed. Install the compression component independently if that is the problem you're trying to solve, and leave unrelated system components out of the first trial.

Kernel tracing and filesystem tools need host capabilities

The installation guide checks eBPF for AgentSight, FUSE for SkillFS, and btrfs for workspace checkpointing. Several components require explicit system scope and sudo. AgentSight's documented resident service runs as root, and installing it does not start collection automatically. These requirements rule out treating the full product as an ordinary library you can drop into an unprivileged container or restricted developer laptop.

Pip-audit's 0 known vulnerabilities applies to the measured Python environment. It cannot certify a root tracing service or prove that a signed skill is safe to execute. The README describes skill-drift detection and blocking findings, useful controls whose effectiveness needs separate examination. Pick the component whose privileges your team can support. A developer who only wants cleaner tool output shouldn't have to approve kernel observation to try it.

October activity shows maintenance across separately released tools

The repository's last push was October 16, 2026. GitHub showed 625 stars and 1,574 open issues and PRs, and the latest release was AgentSight v0.14.1 that day. The requested alibaba/anolisa address now redirects to agentic-os-org/ANOLISA. Recent issue 7994 reports earlier-round tool results being assigned to the wrong exported step in AgentSight, with an open fix proposed. That concerns tracing, separately from our Python runner failures.

RTK is worth comparing for command-output compression. Langfuse fits application tracing and evaluation, while Inspect provides a dedicated framework for model evaluations. None replaces every ANOLISA component. For this repository, start with the smallest capability you can assess against your own workload. If the ClawEval runner is the attraction, get a configured task producing a trace you can inspect before treating its score as evidence about your agent.

Alternatives

ProjectWhat it isPick it when
RTK gh↗A proxy that filters and compresses command output before an agent reads it.pick this instead when command-output compression is the main requirement.
Langfuse gh↗An application observability and evaluation platform with tracing and prompt management.pick this instead when instrumenting application calls and reviewing traces matter more than host-level controls.
InspectA model-evaluation framework with tool use, multi-turn tasks, and model grading.pick this instead when you want to author evaluations without adopting ANOLISA runtime components.

Sources

  1. ANOLISA README
  2. ClawEval runner documentation at the measured commit
  3. Component installation and host requirements
  4. AgentSight v0.14.1 release
  5. AgentSight exported-step attribution report
  6. Current repository metadata

More ai tools reviews

universal-modder · DeepEP-Ascend · DeepGEMM-Ascend · hypoarena · jeeves · faster-whisper · the whole board →