{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr","slug":"sully-omarr","name":"Sully Omarr","type":"product","url":"https://twitter.com/SullyOmarr","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/sully-omarr","categories":["productivity"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"inactive","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr__cap_0","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.deployment.orchestration","name":"agent-deployment-orchestration","description":"Manages the end-to-end deployment pipeline for autonomous agents, handling environment provisioning, dependency resolution, and runtime configuration. Works by abstracting infrastructure concerns (containerization, scaling, networking) behind a declarative deployment model that maps agent definitions to cloud or on-premise execution environments with automatic rollback and health monitoring.","intents":["Deploy a multi-step autonomous agent to production without managing infrastructure","Scale agent execution across multiple concurrent requests with load balancing","Roll back a broken agent deployment to the previous stable version automatically","Monitor deployed agents for runtime failures and resource exhaustion"],"best_for":["teams building production AI agents who need infrastructure abstraction","enterprises deploying agents across multiple environments (dev/staging/prod)","solo developers wanting to avoid DevOps overhead for agent workloads"],"limitations":["Requires pre-defined agent specifications in supported format (likely YAML/JSON)","Deployment latency depends on underlying infrastructure provider (typically 30-120 seconds for cold start)","Limited to supported cloud providers or self-hosted runners; custom infrastructure requires additional configuration"],"requires":["Agent definition in Cognosys format","Cloud provider credentials (AWS/GCP/Azure) or self-hosted runner setup","Network connectivity to deployment infrastructure"],"input_types":["agent configuration (YAML/JSON)","code artifacts (Python/JavaScript)","environment variables and secrets"],"output_types":["deployment status (success/failure)","endpoint URLs for deployed agents","deployment logs and audit trail"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.agent.evaluation.framework","name":"agent-evaluation-framework","description":"Provides structured testing and evaluation infrastructure for autonomous agents, enabling developers to define test suites that measure agent behavior against success criteria. Implements evaluation through scenario-based testing where agents execute predefined tasks and outputs are compared against expected results using configurable metrics (accuracy, latency, cost, safety compliance).","intents":["Define test cases that verify an agent behaves correctly before deployment","Measure agent performance across multiple dimensions (accuracy, speed, cost)","Compare different agent implementations or configurations to identify the best performer","Establish quality gates that prevent deploying agents below performance thresholds"],"best_for":["teams building mission-critical agents requiring quality assurance","researchers benchmarking different agent architectures or LLM backends","organizations with compliance requirements needing audit trails of agent behavior"],"limitations":["Evaluation metrics are only as good as the test cases defined; edge cases may not be covered","Running comprehensive test suites can be expensive if agents make external API calls (LLM inference, tool usage)","Deterministic evaluation difficult for agents with stochastic behavior or non-deterministic tool responses"],"requires":["Test case definitions with expected inputs and outputs","Metrics configuration (which dimensions to measure)","Access to agent runtime for execution during evaluation"],"input_types":["test case specifications (structured format)","agent configurations","evaluation criteria and thresholds"],"output_types":["evaluation reports (pass/fail per test)","performance metrics (numerical scores)","comparison matrices (agent A vs agent B)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.agent.behavior.testing.harness","name":"agent-behavior-testing-harness","description":"Provides a runtime testing environment where agents can be executed in isolated sandboxes with controlled inputs and observable outputs for debugging and validation. Works by intercepting agent execution steps, capturing tool calls and LLM responses, and allowing developers to inspect the decision-making chain to identify logic errors or unexpected behaviors.","intents":["Debug why an agent made an incorrect decision by inspecting its reasoning chain","Test an agent against edge cases or adversarial inputs in a safe sandbox","Capture and replay agent execution traces to reproduce bugs","Validate that an agent correctly uses tools and interprets their responses"],"best_for":["developers building complex multi-step agents with intricate decision logic","teams debugging production agent failures in a safe, non-production environment","researchers studying agent behavior and failure modes"],"limitations":["Sandbox isolation may not perfectly replicate production environment conditions","Debugging large execution traces with many tool calls can be overwhelming without filtering/search","Replay functionality limited if external tool responses are non-deterministic or time-dependent"],"requires":["Agent code/configuration in executable format","Test inputs and expected outputs","Access to tools/APIs the agent depends on (or mocked versions)"],"input_types":["agent code or configuration","test inputs (text, structured data)","tool mocks or real tool endpoints"],"output_types":["execution traces (step-by-step logs)","tool call history with arguments and responses","LLM prompt/response pairs","final agent output"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.multi.environment.agent.management","name":"multi-environment-agent-management","description":"Enables managing and coordinating agent deployments across development, staging, and production environments with environment-specific configurations and secrets management. Implements configuration inheritance and override patterns where agents can have base configurations that are selectively overridden per environment (e.g., different LLM models, API endpoints, rate limits).","intents":["Deploy the same agent to dev/staging/prod with environment-specific configurations","Manage secrets (API keys, credentials) separately per environment without hardcoding","Promote an agent from staging to production after validation","Run A/B tests by deploying different agent versions to different environments"],"best_for":["teams following GitOps/infrastructure-as-code practices","organizations with strict separation of dev/staging/prod environments","enterprises managing multiple agent deployments with different configurations"],"limitations":["Configuration drift can occur if manual changes are made to deployed agents outside the management system","Secrets management adds operational complexity; requires secure storage backend (Vault, AWS Secrets Manager, etc.)","Environment promotion workflows may require approval gates that slow down deployment velocity"],"requires":["Environment definitions (dev/staging/prod)","Configuration templates or inheritance hierarchy","Secrets management backend or integration"],"input_types":["environment configurations (YAML/JSON)","secrets (API keys, credentials)","agent definitions"],"output_types":["deployed agent endpoints per environment","configuration audit logs","promotion status and history"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-sully-omarr__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.agent.performance.monitoring.and.observability","name":"agent-performance-monitoring-and-observability","description":"Provides real-time monitoring and observability for deployed agents, tracking execution metrics (latency, success rate, cost), errors, and resource usage. Implements telemetry collection through instrumentation of agent execution steps, with aggregation and visualization of metrics in dashboards and alerting on anomalies or threshold violations.","intents":["Monitor deployed agents in production to detect failures or performance degradation","Track agent execution costs to optimize spending on LLM API calls and tool usage","Set up alerts when agent success rate drops below acceptable thresholds","Analyze agent behavior patterns to identify optimization opportunities"],"best_for":["teams running agents in production who need visibility into behavior and costs","organizations with cost-conscious LLM usage (tracking token consumption, API call costs)","enterprises requiring SLA compliance and uptime monitoring for agent services"],"limitations":["Monitoring overhead adds latency to agent execution (typically 5-20ms per step for telemetry collection)","High-volume agent deployments can generate large amounts of telemetry data, requiring efficient storage and querying","Alerting rules require tuning to avoid false positives or alert fatigue"],"requires":["Deployed agent instances with instrumentation enabled","Metrics backend (Prometheus, CloudWatch, Datadog, etc.)","Dashboard and alerting configuration"],"input_types":["agent execution events (step completion, tool calls, errors)","resource usage metrics (CPU, memory, latency)","cost data (API call counts, token usage)"],"output_types":["dashboards with real-time metrics","alerts on threshold violations","historical performance reports","cost breakdowns by agent/tool/LLM"],"categories":["automation-workflow","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":21,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Agent definition in Cognosys format","Cloud provider credentials (AWS/GCP/Azure) or self-hosted runner setup","Network connectivity to deployment infrastructure","Test case definitions with expected inputs and outputs","Metrics configuration (which dimensions to measure)","Access to agent runtime for execution during evaluation","Agent code/configuration in executable format","Test inputs and expected outputs","Access to tools/APIs the agent depends on (or mocked versions)","Environment definitions (dev/staging/prod)"],"failure_modes":["Requires pre-defined agent specifications in supported format (likely YAML/JSON)","Deployment latency depends on underlying infrastructure provider (typically 30-120 seconds for cold start)","Limited to supported cloud providers or self-hosted runners; custom infrastructure requires additional configuration","Evaluation metrics are only as good as the test cases defined; edge cases may not be covered","Running comprehensive test suites can be expensive if agents make external API calls (LLM inference, tool usage)","Deterministic evaluation difficult for agents with stochastic behavior or non-deterministic tool responses","Sandbox isolation may not perfectly replicate production environment conditions","Debugging large execution traces with many tool calls can be overwhelming without filtering/search","Replay functionality limited if external tool responses are non-deterministic or time-dependent","Configuration drift can occur if manual changes are made to deployed agents outside the management system","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.25,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.5,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"inactive","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:04.049Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:10.321Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=sully-omarr","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=sully-omarr"}},"signature":"fPiabG4PBPOdbgrjHQm+xh+fA/QJfXPC9JFAKBqAG+bhjxoIgavFkABc9BNW8Lxi7cJ6rjOnIeC6P2yqp6p3Bg==","signedAt":"2026-06-21T07:21:45.648Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/sully-omarr","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/sully-omarr","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=sully-omarr","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}