traceloop / traceloop/openllmetry
Mapping external AI-task receipt IDs into LLM trace/span metadata
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 7.4k
- Forks
- 1.1k
- Avg merge
- 8d 14h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 2
Description
I am exploring how AI Proof of Us receipts should map into LLM traces.
AIPOU creates signed MCP task receipts with hashes, nonce/replay checks, local collector signatures, and explicit evidence boundaries. It does not replace traces, and trace systems should not be responsible for validating AIPOU rewards.
For observability, the useful part may be a small external reference:
{
"aipou.receipt_id": "0x...",
"aipou.validation_status": "local | validated | claimed | rejected",
"aipou.evidence_boundary": "https://github.com/0xddneto/AI-Proof-of-Us/blob/main/docs/evidence-boundaries.md"
}
Would this belong as span attributes, session metadata, a linked event, or an external reference? I am trying to keep raw prompts/outputs private and avoid noisy or misleading metadata.
Interoperability note:
https://github.com/0xddneto/AI-Proof-of-Us/blob/main/docs/receiptid-interoperability.md
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the linked receiptid-interoperability.md document and the proposed aipou metadata fields in this issue. Compare span attributes, session metadata, linked events, and external references against the stated privacy and evidence-boundary concerns. Done means reaching a clear decision about the integration point and metadata scope.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- observability
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100