verdict

an open source, self-hosted alternative to typesafe's jev and its system one api. verdict serves the same wire protocol on your own hardware, so an existing jev client changes its base url and nothing else.

a small python server sits in front of your existing llama-server or llama-swap endpoint with any model of your choosing and serves a jev compatible API.

answer typed questions about a piece of text without generating any text.

one forward pass, read the probability the model puts on each declared option label, renormalise over them. the answer is a distribution over option ids, with the confidence signals needed to decide whether to act on it.

the shape of it, one question from the hacker news demo:

question: which of these links opens the story's comments?
options:  A "229 comments"  B "Hacker News"  C "hide"  D "past"
answer:   a distribution over A-D, plus the option mass that landed on A-D
          at all before renormalising

no tokens are sampled, so nothing here is random: there is no seed to set, because the sampler's rng never touches the numbers being read.

that is not the same as bit-identical, and the difference is measured. on a quiet server the same prompt returns the same probabilities every time -- eight models reproduced their scores exactly across separate runs. on a server under load, 5 of 16 prompts came back different, by up to 3.2e-02, because llama.cpp packs concurrent work into shared batches and matmul reduction order follows batch shape. spec/SPEC.md section 12 carries the tolerance that implies, and docs/EVALS.md carries the noise floor it puts on every number measured here.

why you might want this instead

the trade is real and stated plainly: a hosted service is somebody else's problem to run and tune, and verdict makes you pick a model and live with what docs/EVALS.md says about it. a 2.5b model answers in 374 ms, completes a single-screen android goal 3/3 with no false completions, and fails a goal that needs navigation 3/3.

why read logits instead of generating

a model asked to "reply with only the letter" still generates, still drifts, still needs parsing and retries. reading the logits at one position skips all of that. it is one short request instead of a generation, and the result comes with a health signal a generated answer does not have.

option mass is that signal: the raw probability that landed on the label tokens before renormalising. a model can rank options perfectly on an option mass of 1.7e-08, because renormalising a rounding error still ranks it. accuracy cannot see that; option mass can.

long option lists

A-Za-z labels 52 options. past that the labels come from the model's own vocabulary -- single-character letters it already has tokens for, thousands of them -- so a longer list is still read at one position rather than bracketed into an approximation. it is opt-in, --wide-alphabet.

it is not free, and what it costs depends on the model. measured with list length held fixed and every label unfamiliar, which is the worst case rather than the shipped one:

only the 9b model escapes an accuracy cost. in the configuration actually shipped the pinned 52 come first, so a 104 option list is half familiar and option mass stays at 0.92 to 0.99 on all four.

it also costs latency: an unfamiliar label is not in the top 64 candidates, so the readout has to widen to find it, and the median decision goes from 1033 ms to 2596 ms.

a model that cannot use its own alphabet is refused rather than served. the alphabet is verified the way a formatter is -- by scoring an unambiguous question labelled entirely from it -- and both the option mass and the answer have to hold up. of the four models measured, two are served and two refused, and the two served then pick the right element out of 80.

shortlist if you can; docs/EVALS.md section 2a has the rest, including three cheaper ways to predict this that were measured and all failed.

layout

spec/ is the source of truth. the definitive implementation will be rewritten in rust, so the part that has to survive that is the spec and its fixtures, not this client.

running it

needs a llama-server or llama-swap with a chat model.

make                                  # validate the spec and fixtures
make test                             # conformance tests, no model needed
make precommit                        # lint, build, test

export LLAMA_VERDICT_URL=http://10.1.200.250:7860/v1
export LLAMA_VERDICT_MODEL=qwen3.5-9b:Q8_0
make test-e2e                         # end to end against the live server

a formatter is the small set of affixes that steer a given model to answer with a bare label. it is derived when a model is first used -- nothing to fit in advance and no per-model artifact to ship. the model's own chat template is rendered with sentinel messages and diffed, the result is checked against the option mass floor, and it is cached by the template's sha256 so it happens once per model rather than once per process.

that matters because a pinned table can only cover models someone thought to pin, which fails the case the library exists for: pointing it at an arbitrary gguf on a device.

# no --formatter: the affixes come from the model's own template
PYTHONPATH=python python3 -m llama_verdict.server \
  --base-url "$LLAMA_VERDICT_URL" --model gemma-4-e4b-it:Q8_0 --port 8477
#   formatter gemma-4-e4b-it:Q8_0 (mean option mass 1.0000, derived ...)

first derivation costs about 30-50 s, nearly all of it resolving the 52 label token ids; a cached template is ~300 ms. jinja2 is imported only on that path, so a cached or pinned model stays stdlib-only.

spec/formatters/ holds four fitted tables and a synthetic reference.json. those are golden regression fixtures, not the runtime source: conformance asserts that deriving a pinned model today reproduces its affixes byte for byte, so a change in the engine, the derivation or the template shows up as a diff. make formatters refreshes them. a formatter fitted to one model does not transfer to another -- measured, a mismatched opening puts about 1e-7 of the mass on the labels.

the jev server, and what verdict is not

verdict is an independent project. it is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or derived from typesafe, and jev and system one are their names, not ours.

typesafe's jev is a hosted decision model, called over an http api whose decision endpoint is POST /v1/systemone. verdict serves that same wire shape, so an existing jev client changes its base url and nothing else -- no client code, no field renaming. see docs/JEV_API.md, which records the public sources it was written from and the date they were read.

the relationship is one-directional and has three parts, worth separating:

that last one is why the compatibility matters to us at all: a protocol you implement from documentation is a guess until somebody else's client drives it unchanged.

compatibility is a surface, not a claim of equivalence. verdict is a local readout over a gguf you already have. it makes no claim to match jev's accuracy, calibration, latency or behaviour, and docs/EVALS.md measures what it actually does rather than comparing against a hosted service we cannot inspect.

the server is optional. the python client and the demos talk to it over the same protocol because that keeps one wire format in the project rather than two, and because the rust core is expected to replace this server rather than grow it.

PYTHONPATH=python python3 -m llama_verdict.server \
  --base-url "$LLAMA_VERDICT_URL" --model "$LLAMA_VERDICT_MODEL" --port 8477

the demos below all expect it on 127.0.0.1:8477. --formatter is optional and only pins a table instead of deriving one; --assistant-open spells out an assistant opening for a format whose generation prompt ends before content begins, which gpt-oss needs.

demos

agent loops where every decision is a typed question and nothing is generated.

# hacker news, our own cdp driver
./demos/browser_agent.py \
  --goal "Read the top 5 comments on each of the top 3 stories on Hacker News." \
  --require '[0-9]+\s*comments' \
  --collect '^\s*[a-z0-9_-]{2,15} [0-9]+ (?:minute|hour|day)s? ago \|[^\n]*\n+[^\n]+' \
  --retire-read

# the same task through an unmodified browser-use/jev-ultrafast client
./demos/run_hn_demo.py --target-first --shortlist 26

# android, over mimic's accessibility surface
./demos/mimic_agent.py --goal "Open About phone and find the Android version." \
  --require "Android version" --launch

--require is how a run is SCORED: each pattern must actually appear on a screen the agent reached. the agent's own DONE is an opinion, and one was measured at 0.32 with a third of the goal outstanding.

that opinion does carry signal, though. true completions measure 0.862-0.984 and false ones 0.522-0.757, so --done-confidence 0.81 separates them with room for the drift in section 12 of the spec. run across the three models that produced false completions, it removed all four and blocked no true one.

it buys trustworthiness rather than capability: the models that could not do the task still cannot, they now run out of steps instead of claiming success. it is off by default, and holds a separate threshold from --min-confidence on purpose -- "is this the right target" and "is the task finished" are different questions.

--collect is the task's OUTPUT. verdict decides where to look and never produces the answer text, so whatever the agent navigated to is read off the page rather than generated. scripts/page_text.py URL dumps exactly what the agent sees, which is how to write one of these patterns.

docs/EVALS.md is the results document -- every measurement, the instrument that produced it, and what it does not show. the cheap instruments come first there for a reason: a benchmark ranks a model in a minute with no browser and no device, and an agent run against a live site measures the model, the harness, the network and a page that moves underneath it.

scripts/smoke_models.py --models qwen3.5-4b:Q8_0 minicpm5-2b:Q8_0

docs/DEMOS.md carries the agent-loop narrative and the interventions that did nothing.

licence

GPL-3.0-or-later. the full text is in LICENSE, verbatim from the fsf.

worth knowing before building on it, because it is a strong copyleft and this project is heading for a library: REQUIREMENTS.md FR7 describes a flutter library loading a gguf through llama.cpp via ffi, and the plan's phases 5 and 6 build a dart core and an ffi plugin. under the GPL an application that links that library must itself be GPL-compatible, which apache-2.0 -- the licence the plan originally defaulted to -- would not have required. that is a deliberate choice by the product owner and not an oversight; flagged here so nobody discovers it at integration time.

THIRD_PARTY.md and the dependency licence check are not written yet. the python client is stdlib only except jinja2, which is used on the derivation path alone and is BSD-3-Clause.

what is not claimed

calibrated probabilities, out of the box. gemma-4-e2b was measured reporting 1.000 confidence on wrong answers. gating on raw confidence is not safe until a calibration is fitted on your own data, and the docs say which model sizes are fit for which kinds of question rather than implying all of them are.