
LLM Preflight
io.github.feronovak由 GitHub 账号 feronovak 发布v2.23.1更新于 Nov 7, 2026
Local, cross-provider preflight checks for LLM integration changes.
发布方自己的服务:Preflight
概览
本地 MCP 服务器,让编码助手在更换模型、提示词或供应商前校验 LLM 输出契约、预览请求计划并执行有界的预检。
- 可以做什么
- 审计代码中的字面模型 ID 并校验预检配置
- 在不调用供应商的情况下预览运行计划、定价与请求上限
- 按配置的输出规则执行预检并读取结构化判定
- 比较已保存的基线并核验运行记录
- 把关 CI 证据并规划退役模型的迁移
- 适用场景
- 当你维护 LLM 功能,希望助手在切换模型、提示词、schema 或供应商之前,按应用依赖的 JSON 结构、标签或精确输出检查响应,并为变更评审保留可核查的证据时使用。
- 运行要求
- 以 stdio 本地进程运行,通过 llm-preflight-mcp 命令并传入工作区路径启动;需要 Python 3.10 及以上,无第三方运行时依赖。真实供应商检查需要配置中指定的环境变量(如 OPENAI_API_KEY)提供 API 密钥,并需要网络访问。
安装
在 SourceWeft 中
- 打开 控制台中的 LLM Preflight,将其添加到工作区。
- 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。
Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。
其他 MCP 客户端
参照 仓库 中的启动说明。
README
LLM Preflight
Last reviewed: 2026-10-29 · As of: v2.23.0
Check LLM responses against the output rules your application depends on—before changing a model, prompt, schema, or provider.
Define the JSON shape, routing labels, or exact output your feature needs. Check responses against those rules, preview provider requests and estimated cost, and keep evidence for the change review.
Built for engineers maintaining an LLM feature. Runs locally as a CLI, GitHub Action, or MCP server. Python 3.10+; no third-party runtime dependencies.
Try it · Observed models · Use your own contract · CI and agents
Watch an invalid response get caught and fixed (23 seconds).
billing passes → change the response to sales → check fails → restore
billing → check passes. The allowed labels stay unchanged.
Real CLI output with synthetic response fixtures. This checks the validator; it makes no provider requests and does not execute your application's parser. Watch the MP4.
New in 2.23.0
This release adds GPT-6.1 Terra pricing and native Kimi, MiniMax, Mistral and Cohere text checks, plus GLM Flash and restricted Mythos coverage. See native provider checks for bounded examples and request limits. New coverage has deterministic protocol fixtures; live observations below cover the listed 19 routes. Other added providers retain fixture-only coverage.
Try it in 60 seconds
In a new directory, install the tool and run the local mock—no API key or provider request:
The activation command above is for POSIX shells; PowerShell uses
.\.venv\Scripts\Activate.ps1.
init refuses to overwrite an existing config. Look for local-mock with
PASS in the quality gate: the mock replied ok and passed the exact-output
test. The overall decision is inconclusive (exit 3) because a local mock
provides no live-provider evidence. The demo worked; it cannot approve a model.
--no-save skips JSON/Markdown result artifacts; --no-env-file skips credential files.
Watch the interactive default template (30 seconds)
Select the mock and default Reply with ok test, review the plan, and confirm
the local run. The session also reads the same decision through CLI JSON:
Local test: passed. Live provider: not tested. No API keys or provider calls. Watch the MP4 or start with the text walkthrough and interactive CLI JSON example.
For benchmark runs, read the decision before acting:
pass, exit0: the configured checks passed with the required evidence.fail, exit1: a configured check failed; inspect the cause.inconclusive, exit3: evidence is insufficient; read the blocking warnings.
A passing run is evidence for the configured workload, not production approval.
Observed results on a support-routing contract
The latest measurement, 2026-10-29, tested 19 native model routes on eight synthetic support-routing and strict JSON cases each. 144 of 152 checks passed: three outputs failed their contract and five Kimi calls returned HTTP 429. 15 models passed all eight checks. These are workload observations, not a ranking of general intelligence or production approval.
Latency includes successful API responses, including contract failures, and excludes API errors. The known token-cost subtotal is $0.06902127; total cost is unknown because five error responses supplied no usage. Each request used a 1,024-token output allowance and one attempt. No retries were made. Read all 19 rows, the method and failure analysis. Previous dated measurements remain available as history.
First live run
Start with one rule your application already enforces. The project integration guide provides a complete routing contract with accepted/rejected fixtures and a no-spend pull-request check. Match your deployed prompt and response parser; local fixture checks do not execute application code automatically.
To try a minimal provider starter instead:
The starter asks for exactly ok. Add this top-level field to live.json,
keeping its existing fields, to check the validator locally:
Set OPENAI_API_KEY in your shell or in an uncommitted .env.production
beside live.json. The config stores the variable name, never the key.
Preview the check without making a generation request:
The starter has a three-request limit and a $0.05 estimated-cost cap. Resolve warnings and review the route, retry-expanded request bound, pricing and retention settings. The starter saves failed responses by default; review artifacts before sharing them.
Paid request: only after reviewing and authorizing that plan, run:
A direct CLI run has no separate approval prompt. Results are saved as JSON
and Markdown under results/ unless you use --no-save. The CLI reads the
config-adjacent .env.production without replacing existing shell values;
choose another file with --env-file PATH or skip it with --no-env-file.
Choose your path
- Set up a real project. Adapt one application rule with the project integration guide.
- Validate a change. Compare approved and candidate configurations with the model-change guide.
- Automate an established contract. Use CI and JSON output or the GitHub Action.
- Configure a coding agent. Start with
llm-preflight-mcp --workspace "$PWD"in a trusted repository and follow the MCP server guide.
See a contract change fail
A review artifact retains the decision, contract validity, latency, usage,
estimated cost and blocking warnings. Render saved schema-version-1 JSON as
a standalone report without another provider request. Substitute the saved
JSON path printed by your run for results/run.json:
The renderer omits prompts, responses, local paths and identifying run metadata. For reproducible examples, run these from a source checkout:
The first synthetic result passes; the second reports contract_failure, 67%
contract validity and one contract-only failure. The
report gallery
also demonstrates a gate blocked with no_record (exit 1). These fixtures
make no provider calls and cannot supply attested CI evidence.
CLI, CI, and MCP
Works as a CLI, GitHub Action, and local MCP server. The Action defaults to no generation requests; a live MCP run requires explicit paid-run confirmation. Keep the client's tool approval enabled: its confirmation field is not proof that a person authorized spending.
No preflight, no merge. With a required check configured, the offline gate
requires a fresh passing CI record matching the current contract, routes,
prompts and run selection. Protect the producer and gate workflows; signed
records also need gh attestation verify before the gate. Follow
proof of preflight
to configure it. A local fixture pass or installed package does not enforce a
merge policy.
It doesn't certify production behaviour. It proves the check was done.
MCP for coding agents
Configure the installed stdio command in your MCP client:
The eight tools (migrate_plan is main branch only, not in 2.23.1) audit literal model IDs, validate a config, preview a plan, run
a preflight, compare saved baselines, verify a record, gate CI evidence and plan
a retired-model migration.
For an existing contract, begin with validate_config and dry_run_plan.
Agents must read the structured decision and report missing evidence.
See the MCP guide
for request/result examples and workspace boundaries.
The agent-smoke suite with --smoke makes six requests per model before
configured retries. Use the
coding-agent workflow
for CLI commands. An agent must not weaken a validator to get a pass or infer
permission for paid work from a gate result.
Common jobs
-
Audit existing model IDs:
llm-preflight --audit-source .reports literal IDs marked retired or retiring in the bundled snapshot. No config or key is needed. Add--cito make the retirement decision affect the exit code; without it, findings normally exit0. In Git, the scan reads tracked, unignored files. See model retirements. -
Replace a retired model:
llm-preflight migrate benchmark.json --output migrate.jsonwrites a candidate of the provider-named replacements and prints its plan. After you record an approval receipt,migrate ... --run --verify-approval-receipt Rruns one bounded smoke. See model retirements. -
Inspect pricing:
--doctorprovides pricing advisory;--pricing-checkis the fail-closed coverage gate. Preview the run withllm-preflight benchmark.json --dry-run. -
Review Git changes:
llm-preflight benchmark.json --change-planproposes checks from static signals; it does not authorize execution. -
Discover a candidate: refresh metadata, prepare a plan and preview it:
Create the watch/approved files first with the model catalogue guide. Catalogue probes are a separate, potentially billable step.
Change a model safely
Put approved and candidate models in a reviewed config, then preview the built-in compatibility pack:
After approving that plan, llm-preflight benchmark.json --migration-check
sends three built-in cases per model before configured retries: a capital-city
answer, summary and rewrite. They check basic compatibility; use your own
application contract tests
to establish whether the change meets your feature's rules.
Safety boundary
Results apply to the configured account, route, prompts and validators at one time. Model responses remain stochastic. Deterministic validation checks the rules you declare; it does not establish semantic accuracy or production safety. Preview limits before live requests and keep paid-run authority with the person responsible for the integration.
How it compares
Use this project for a bounded contract check and reviewable evidence before an integration change. Evaluation frameworks also support assertions and CI; keep one when it already meets your needs. Broader evaluation suites serve semantic scoring and statistical comparisons; observability tools serve production tracing and incident investigation. See when to use it.
Get help or try it in your project
Ask for setup help or a contract example. Include the version, intended check and redacted output. Never share keys, private prompts or provider responses. Use the security policy for vulnerabilities.
Documentation
The documentation homepage routes by task. Consult CLI reference, configuration and result JSON for exact behavior. Native routes and dated pricing coverage are listed in current snapshots. The AI implementation testing guide explains the intended workflow and scope.
Release notes for every version are in the changelog.
Contributing and license
See Contributing for development and documentation standards. Released under the MIT License.
来源:README.md,提交 7336c0d
工具
0版本历史
11- v2.23.1最新Nov 7, 2026
- v2.23.0Oct 29, 2026
- v2.22.2Oct 19, 2026
- v2.22.1Oct 18, 2026
- v2.21.2Oct 14, 2026
- v2.20.1Oct 12, 2026
- v2.19.1Oct 8, 2026
- v2.19.0Sep 30, 2026
- v2.18.2Sep 29, 2026
- v2.17.1Sep 25, 2026
- v2.13.0Sep 16, 2026
评分
已满足适用检查项的 50%
该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。
- 近 30 天内可连通25 分
请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。
- 已声明认证方式10 分
请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。
- 已列出工具15 分
请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。
- 描述必需15 分
- 图标10 分
- 文档15 分
- 许可证10 分
其他 Preflight 集成
Preflight
social.preflight官方发布者
托管式社交媒体排程服务器,让助手起草、按规则校验、排程并向 12 个平台发布帖子。

SQLite rebuild copy-map preflight
由 GitHub 账号 showflexinc 发布
远程预检服务,在重建执行前检查 SQLite 表重建复制映射的结构。

Rust MCP Preflight
由 GitHub 账号 Wolfe-Jam 发布
在发布前检查 MCP Registry 条目:README 中的 mcp-name 行、server.json 的发布规则以及服务器名称。

Multipart row preflight
由 GitHub 账号 showflexinc 发布
CSV row-structure inspection (inspect_parts) and manifest comparison (compare_manifest).

Tool-dialogue preflight
由 GitHub 账号 showflexinc 发布
针对JSONL工具对话训练数据的结构化预检。AI 翻译