Frame Check

io.github.lluvr由 GitHub 账号 lluvr 发布v1.2.2更新于 Nov 7, 2026

Deterministic structural framing analysis for AI-generated documents; no LLM call of its own.

发布方自己的服务:check.tattoo: tattoo size and placement guide

已验证STDIO仅桌面知识与记忆数据与分析

概览

AI 生成的概览

本地 MCP 服务器,对文档做确定性的结构性框架分析,并将文档中的数字论断与一手数据源交叉核对。

可以做什么
  • 分析文档的框架画像:五种分析视角中覆盖了哪些、遗漏了哪些及其密度
  • 评估叙述声音、认知姿态以及论断中注明来源的比例
  • 报告时间取向:基于历史数据、当前状况还是预测
  • 按目录匹配具名框架模式,输出候选级信号与置信状态
  • 在数据源有覆盖时,将数字论断与 SEC EDGAR、FRED、世界银行、Alpha Vantage 和 Wolfram Alpha 核对
  • 可选附加 AI 叙述解读,并与确定性测量结果分开标注
适用场景
当你需要对文档框架获得可复现、每次一致的分析结果,而不是一次性的模型观点时适用;也适合核对报告或财报摘要中的数字是否与一手来源一致,或比较不同模型、不同草稿对同一问题的框架差异。
运行要求
以 Python 包 frame-check-mcp 在本地运行,用 pip 安装后通过其入口点启动,例如写入 Claude Desktop 配置。未声明任何认证、环境变量或请求头。来源核验会访问外部数据提供方;仅可选的 AI 叙述解读需要配置 API 密钥。
安装前请注意
它会读取你传入的文档,并把其中的数字论断发送给第三方数据提供方核验。框架模式匹配属于候选级、beta 阶段的信号,并非已确认的标签。可选的 AI 叙述需要 API 密钥且由模型生成,不应视为测量结果。

安装

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 打开 控制台中的 Frame Check,将其添加到工作区。
  2. 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

Frame Check

[PyPI] [Python] [License] [Tests]

See what any document does not show you.

Frame Check is a deterministic structural framing analysis tool. It names which analytical perspectives a document takes, which it omits, and how it positions the reader, and it cross-checks the document's numeric claims against primary sources a language model can't reach (SEC EDGAR, FRED, World Bank, and others). It makes no LLM call of its own, so the same document always returns the same reading at no model cost.

Quickstart (MCP server)

The PyPI package frame-check-mcp is the Model Context Protocol server. It runs locally and gives any MCP-compatible AI client (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, Continue.dev, etc.) deterministic structural framing analysis as a tool.

pip install frame-check-mcp

Then point your MCP client at the installed entry point. For Claude Desktop, add to claude_desktop_config.json:

{  "mcpServers": {    "frame-check": {      "command": "frame-check-mcp"    }  }}

Restart the client. Then in any conversation: "Can you frame-check this document?" Full install + verification details in docs/MCP_SERVER.md.

Verifying the wheel (sigstore attestation)

Every published wheel ships with a sigstore build-provenance attestation generated inside the GitHub Actions publish workflow via OIDC. Adopters who want to verify the wheel was built from this repository's CI (and not modified between the runner and PyPI) can do so with the gh CLI:

pip download frame-check-mcp --no-deps -d /tmp/fc-verifygh attestation verify /tmp/fc-verify/frame_check_mcp-*.whl \  --owner Clarethium

A passing verification proves the wheel artifact's hash matches the one signed by the publish workflow run for the corresponding tag, with the workflow file path and git SHA recorded in the attestation. Verification is optional; security-conscious deployments and packaging mirrors may want it as part of their install pipeline.

What it does

Pass a document and Frame Check returns:

  • A structural framing profile: which of five analytical perspectives (causes, risks, stakeholders, trends, uncertainty) the document covers, which it omits, and the density of each.
  • Voice and epistemic posture: how the document positions the reader, and what share of claims are attributed to sources.
  • Temporal orientation: whether the document grounds its conclusions in historical data, present state, or projections.
  • Frame Vocabulary Standard candidate matches: named frame patterns whose rule-based signals fire on the text, each with identification cues and worked examples. Matches are candidate-level signals, not verified labels.
  • Source-network verification: numeric claims checked against SEC EDGAR, FRED, World Bank, Alpha Vantage, and Wolfram Alpha where those providers have coverage.
  • An optional AI narrative interpreting framing at prose level. Labelled distinctly so readers do not conflate language-model interpretation with deterministic measurement.

Approach

Structural measurement is the floor. Every framing claim the tool makes is computed from deterministic pattern matchers and always returns the same result for the same input. AI-assisted interpretation is available as enrichment where an API key is configured, but is labelled as such and never hidden behind the structural layer.

Verification is bounded. The tool only verifies numeric claims against providers with genuine coverage for the claim type, and it surfaces its own calibration results (precision, recall, F1 per provider) rather than asserting verdicts without evidence.

Named-pattern detection is a separate, beta layer from the structural profile. It surfaces candidate matches, under-detection markers, density caveats, and confidence states rather than confident labels, so you can see where the tool is unsure instead of trusting an overconfident verdict.

Calibration figures, honest limits, and the methodology behind them live in the methodology at frame.clarethium.com/corpus/methodology.

Why this and not just an LLM

An MCP-compatible AI client can already analyse a document by prompting an LLM. Frame Check earns its install footprint where the LLM falls short:

  • Determinism. The structural layer returns the same numbers for the same input across runs, deploys, and model versions. An LLM asked "what frames does this document use" gives a different answer each time and a different answer per model. Reproducible analysis needs the deterministic shape; opinions can layer on top.
  • Zero per-query cost. Frame Check's MCP server makes no LLM call server-side. The caller's agent does the prose interpretation if the user wants that. This means a frame-check on a 10,000-word document costs the user $0.00, not the $0.05 to $0.50 an LLM call would charge.
  • Explicit absence. The frame-divergence block names what the document does not address by comparing matched frames against the Frame Vocabulary Standard catalog. An LLM asked "what's missing" hallucinates plausible-sounding gaps; Frame Check enumerates catalog entries that did not fire on the text and says so.
  • Calibrated detection. The named-pattern layer is labelled beta in the API responses (engine_status: beta) and surfaces under-detection markers rather than confident labels. You get an honest "this is uncertain" instead of a confident guess.
  • Source verification. Numeric claims with provider coverage get cross-checked against SEC EDGAR / FRED / World Bank / REST Countries / Alpha Vantage / Wolfram Alpha at provider pricing tiers (zero or user-keyed). An LLM asked "is this number right" cannot fetch primary sources; Frame Check does.

Deterministic, source-grounded measurement is not work an LLM is suited to do. Frame Check provides that layer so the LLM can lean on it instead of being asked to do that work in-band.

Worked example

Same prompt, four frontier LLMs, four materially different framing signatures. data/worked_examples/four-llms-on-bitcoin-retirement-2026.md runs Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, Grok 4.1 Fast Reasoning, and Gemini 2.5 Flash against an investment question and surfaces the per-model structural shape: voice, coverage, frame matches, sourcing rate. The point in plain form: your AI is one framing choice among several, not the framing.

Five more published examples live alongside it: framings of an LLM response to a life-decision prompt, an AI-company founder essay, an FOMC monetary-policy statement, and a Source-Network verification pass on an LLM-summarised earnings release, plus a divergence walk-through on Claude's Bitcoin retirement recommendation. See data/worked_examples/ for the full set.

Documentation

Browse docs/README.md for reading paths organised by intent (install + use, understand frame divergence, read the worked examples). The full inventory:

  • docs/MCP_SERVER.md: MCP server reference (tools, resources, prompts)
  • docs/COOKBOOK.md: five recipes for common adopter tasks (frame-check before agent commit, divergence at decision points, source-grounded verification, two-LLM comparison, custom FVS rule)
  • docs/FRAME_DIVERGENCE_CONTRACT_v1.md: interface contract for the Frame Divergence emission shape (c1.0)
  • data/frame_library/: 20-entry Frame Vocabulary Standard catalog
  • data/worked_examples/: published worked examples with multi-LLM comparisons + per-document Frame Check analysis (6 entries)
  • The methodology behind the Frame Vocabulary Standard is documented at frame.clarethium.com/corpus/methodology
  • Frame Check introduction (blog): the four analysis layers, with examples of the output

Running tests

pip install -e .[test]python3 run_tests.py

Or directly via pytest:

python3 -m pytest -q

26 test files under tests/, ~30 seconds end-to-end. Includes 40 adversarial dispatcher test functions in tests/test_mcp_adversarial.py (parametrized into 63 tests at collection time), a per-module 80% coverage gate on the seven wheel-surface modules (scripts/check_per_module_coverage.py), the cookbook-recipe contract suite (tests/test_cookbook_recipes.py), and the genre-classifier + frame-divergence coverage.

License

Apache-2.0 for code; CC-BY-4.0 for the FVS library and worked examples (see NOTICE for the per-directory enumeration).

Citation

If Frame Check is useful in your work, see .github/CITATION.cff for the citable form. Frame Check is authored by Lovro Lucic.

Contributing

Sign-off-by-DCO required per .github/CONTRIBUTING.md. Governance per .github/GOVERNANCE.md (BDFL model with named forcing functions for canon-promotion decisions).

Issues

https://github.com/lluvr/frame-check/issues

来源:README.md,提交 aa24cba

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中启动过该软件包,因此其工具未知。

版本历史

2
  1. v1.2.2最新Nov 7, 2026
  2. v1.2.1Nov 5, 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 Check 集成