Semantix-verify

Semantix-verify

Semantix-Verify is an MCP server for semantic validation of AI/LLM outputs. It exposes a single tool, verify_text_intent(text, intent_description, threshold), which uses a local quantized NLI cross-encoder (INT8 ONNX) to return a 0.0–1.0 probability that the text satisfies the given intent — and, when it doesn't, a structured correction prompt for agent retry loops. Useful for building com

Category
访问服务器

README

<p align="center"> <h1 align="center">semantix-ai</h1> <p align="center"><strong>Provable semantic validation for LLM outputs. Local. Deterministic. Auditable.</strong></p> </p>

<p align="center"> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/semantix-ai/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/v/semantix-ai?color=blue&label=PyPI" alt="PyPI version"></a> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/semantix-ai/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/pyversions/semantix-ai" alt="Python versions"></a> <a href="https://github.com/labrat-akhona/semantix-ai/blob/master/LICENSE"><img src="https://img.shields.io/github/license/labrat-akhona/semantix-ai" alt="License"></a> <a href="https://pypi.org/project/semantix-ai/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/pypi/dm/semantix-ai?color=green" alt="Downloads"></a> <a href="https://labrat-akhona.github.io/semantix-ai/"><img src="https://img.shields.io/badge/docs-mkdocs-blue" alt="Docs"></a> </p>


Validate every LLM output against an explicit intent. Get back a score, a verdict, and a tamper-evident receipt. Locally. In ~15-50 milliseconds. Without an API key.

pip install semantix-ai
from semantix import Intent, validate_intent

class ResolutionPolite(Intent):
    """The response must acknowledge the customer's issue and propose a concrete next step, in a polite tone."""

@validate_intent(ResolutionPolite, audit=True)
def handle_complaint(message: str) -> str:
    return call_my_llm(message)

reply = handle_complaint(incoming)
# Returns the validated reply — or raises SemanticIntentError.
# The audit engine has already written a hash-chained receipt to disk.

Why this exists

LLM applications quietly skip the step where you prove the output was fit for purpose. The common fix — calling a bigger LLM as a judge — has three problems:

  1. It drifts. Same input, different score on different runs. A regulator asking "rerun this validation" gets a different answer, which is indistinguishable from evidence the system is broken.
  2. It ships personal information out of your network. Every judge call sends the output to a third-party API. Under POPIA §72 (or GDPR Art. 44, or the EU AI Act's high-risk-system obligations) that's a problem to document, not a default.
  3. It produces no receipt. The validation happened, a score came back, nothing was recorded in a form that survives an audit.

semantix replaces that reflex with a local, deterministic validator and a tamper-evident log. Every validation produces a signed JSON-LD certificate hash-chained to the previous one. Modify any entry and every subsequent hash breaks. The regulator doesn't need to trust your database — the math proves the chain is intact.


What you get

1. Validation as a decorator

from semantix import Intent, validate_intent

class MedicalAdvice(Intent):
    """The text provides a medical diagnosis or treatment recommendation."""

@validate_intent(~MedicalAdvice)  # Must NOT give medical advice
def chatbot(msg: str) -> str:
    return call_my_llm(msg)

Compose with & (all must pass) and | (any must pass):

SafeAndPolite = Polite & ~MedicalAdvice & ~LegalAdvice

2. Tamper-evident audit trail

from semantix.audit.engine import AuditEngine
engine = AuditEngine()

# Every @validate_intent call with audit=True writes a hash-chained certificate.
engine.verify_chain()  # True if no tampering

Each certificate records the hash of the validated text, the intent, the judge identity and configuration, the verdict, the timestamp, and the hash of the previous certificate. Compatible with JSON-LD tooling and standard audit pipelines.

3. Self-healing retries

On failure, semantix injects structured feedback so the LLM knows what went wrong:

from typing import Optional

@validate_intent(ResolutionPolite, retries=2)
def reply(msg: str, semantix_feedback: Optional[str] = None) -> str:
    prompt = f"Reply to: {msg}"
    if semantix_feedback:
        prompt += f"\n\n{semantix_feedback}"
    return call_llm(prompt)

First call: semantix_feedback is None. On retry: it receives a Markdown report with the score, reason, and rejected output. Measured reliability improves from 21% to 70% across three intent categories.

4. Forensic token-level attribution

from semantix import ForensicJudge, QuantizedNLIJudge
judge = ForensicJudge(QuantizedNLIJudge())
# Verdict.reason: "Suspect tokens: [indemnify, forfeit, waive]"

5. pytest integration

from semantix.testing import assert_semantic

def test_chatbot_is_polite():
    response = my_chatbot("handle angry customer")
    assert_semantic(response, "polite and professional")

On failure:

AssertionError: Semantic check failed (score=0.12)
  Intent:  polite and professional
  Output:  "You're an idiot for asking that."
  Reason:  Text contains aggressive language

First-class pytest plugin with fixtures, markers, and CI reporting: pytest-semantix.


Framework integrations

Drop into your existing stack — retries are handled natively by each framework.

DSPy

import dspy
from semantix.integrations.dspy import semantic_reward

qa = dspy.ChainOfThought("question -> answer")
refined = dspy.Refine(module=qa, N=3, reward_fn=semantic_reward(Polite))

semantic_reward / semantic_metric also plug into dspy.BestOfN, dspy.Evaluate, and MIPROv2 — local, no API calls, ~15 ms per eval. See benchmarks/ for reproducible comparisons against LLM-judge reward functions.

<details> <summary><strong>LangChain</strong></summary>

from semantix.integrations.langchain import SemanticValidator
validator = SemanticValidator(Polite)
chain = prompt | llm | StrOutputParser() | validator

</details>

<details> <summary><strong>Pydantic AI</strong></summary>

from pydantic_ai import Agent
from semantix.integrations.pydantic_ai import semantix_validator
agent = Agent("openai:gpt-4o", output_type=str)
agent.output_validator(semantix_validator(Polite))

</details>

<details> <summary><strong>Guardrails AI</strong></summary>

from guardrails import Guard
from semantix.integrations.guardrails import SemanticIntent
guard = Guard().use(SemanticIntent("must be polite and professional"))

</details>

<details> <summary><strong>Instructor</strong></summary>

from semantix.integrations.instructor import SemanticStr
from pydantic import BaseModel
class Response(BaseModel):
    reply: SemanticStr["must be polite and professional", 0.85]

</details>

<details> <summary><strong>MCP</strong></summary>

pip install "semantix-ai[mcp,nli]"
mcp run semantix/mcp/server.py

Any MCP-capable agent (Claude Desktop, Cursor, etc.) can validate intents as a tool.

</details>

<details> <summary><strong>GitHub Actions</strong></summary>

- uses: labrat-akhona/semantic-test-action@v1
  with:
    test-path: tests/

Posts a semantic test report as a PR comment.

</details>

Install extras: pip install "semantix-ai[dspy]", "[langchain]", "[pydantic-ai]", "[guardrails]", "[instructor]", "[mcp]", "[all]".


Pluggable judges

Choose the speed / accuracy / reasoning trade-off:

from semantix import NLIJudge, EmbeddingJudge, LLMJudge, CachingJudge

@validate_intent(judge=NLIJudge())                           # local, ~15 ms, deterministic
@validate_intent(judge=EmbeddingJudge())                     # local, ~5 ms, similarity-based
@validate_intent(judge=LLMJudge(model="gpt-4o-mini"))        # reasoning, ~500 ms, API
@validate_intent(judge=CachingJudge(NLIJudge(), maxsize=256))  # LRU-wrapped

Quantized mode (INT8 ONNX, ~25 MB, no PyTorch):

pip install "semantix-ai[turbo]"

When this is the right tool

  • You're running an LLM-backed system that processes personal information and need an auditable validation step.
  • You're optimising a DSPy program and the LLM-judge reward loop is too slow, too expensive, or too non-deterministic.
  • You need semantic test assertions in pytest / CI that don't call a paid API.
  • You're in a regulated industry (financial services, insurance, healthcare) and "the model said it was fine" isn't a defensible answer.

When it isn't

  • Your validation intent requires multi-hop reasoning or world knowledge ("is this compliant with section 4(b) of the 2026 tax code"). NLI can't do this; reasoning LLMs can.
  • You need the judge to explain why in prose, not just give a score.
  • You're evaluating fewer than 100 outputs per month and the latency / cost of LLM-as-judge doesn't matter.

See Where semantix fits for a comparison against TruLens, DeepEval, Vectara HHEM, Guardrails, RAGAS, and NeMo.


Key properties

  • Local inference — NLI model runs on CPU, no data leaves your machine.
  • Deterministic — same input, same score, every time, on every machine. Seedable.
  • Fast — ~15-50 ms per check with the quantized judge.
  • Zero API cost — no tokens burned for validation.
  • Auditable — hash-chained JSON-LD certificates per check.
  • Well-tested — 249 tests, MIT licensed.

Installation

pip install semantix-ai                    # Core (default NLI judge)
pip install "semantix-ai[turbo]"           # Quantized ONNX (smallest footprint)
pip install "semantix-ai[openai]"          # LLM judge (GPT-4o-mini)
pip install "semantix-ai[all]"             # Everything

Package name on PyPI is semantix-ai. Import is from semantix import ....


Contributing

See CONTRIBUTING.md for dev setup, testing, and submission guidelines.

License

MIT — see LICENSE.


<p align="center"> <em>Built by <a href="https://github.com/labrat-akhona">Akhona Eland</a> in South Africa</em> </p>

推荐服务器

Baidu Map

Baidu Map

百度地图核心API现已全面兼容MCP协议,是国内首家兼容MCP协议的地图服务商。

官方
精选
JavaScript
Playwright MCP Server

Playwright MCP Server

一个模型上下文协议服务器,它使大型语言模型能够通过结构化的可访问性快照与网页进行交互,而无需视觉模型或屏幕截图。

官方
精选
TypeScript
Magic Component Platform (MCP)

Magic Component Platform (MCP)

一个由人工智能驱动的工具,可以从自然语言描述生成现代化的用户界面组件,并与流行的集成开发环境(IDE)集成,从而简化用户界面开发流程。

官方
精选
本地
TypeScript
Audiense Insights MCP Server

Audiense Insights MCP Server

通过模型上下文协议启用与 Audiense Insights 账户的交互,从而促进营销洞察和受众数据的提取和分析,包括人口统计信息、行为和影响者互动。

官方
精选
本地
TypeScript
VeyraX

VeyraX

一个单一的 MCP 工具,连接你所有喜爱的工具:Gmail、日历以及其他 40 多个工具。

官方
精选
本地
graphlit-mcp-server

graphlit-mcp-server

模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现了 MCP 客户端与 Graphlit 服务之间的集成。 除了网络爬取之外,还可以将任何内容(从 Slack 到 Gmail 再到播客订阅源)导入到 Graphlit 项目中,然后从 MCP 客户端检索相关内容。

官方
精选
TypeScript
Kagi MCP Server

Kagi MCP Server

一个 MCP 服务器,集成了 Kagi 搜索功能和 Claude AI,使 Claude 能够在回答需要最新信息的问题时执行实时网络搜索。

官方
精选
Python
e2b-mcp-server

e2b-mcp-server

使用 MCP 通过 e2b 运行代码。

官方
精选
Neon MCP Server

Neon MCP Server

用于与 Neon 管理 API 和数据库交互的 MCP 服务器

官方
精选
Exa MCP Server

Exa MCP Server

模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器允许像 Claude 这样的 AI 助手使用 Exa AI 搜索 API 进行网络搜索。这种设置允许 AI 模型以安全和受控的方式获取实时的网络信息。

官方
精选