Skip to content

langgraph-decision-models

INVOKE THIS SKILL when routing a LangGraph agent with a decision model (TypeSafe Jev, SemIf) instead of an LLM, or when auditing an existing agent for LLM calls that only produce a routing decision. Covers langchain-typesafe Noul/Choice/Score, reading answers correctly, threshold design, and LangSmith Gateway wiring.

1,544
installs
0 up / 0 down, score 0.00
votes
1,299
repo stars
Updated
less than a month ago
In the catalog since
13 Oct 2026
From
langchain-ai/langchain-skills
Get it through your agent npx skills add langchain-ai/langchain-skills@langgraph-decision-models

Skill instructions

Rendered from the published SKILL.md, 212 lines.

A **decision model** answers typed questions about state and returns probabilities instead of prose. It replaces the common pattern of prompting an LLM, parsing its text, and branching on the result.
  • Noul(instructions=...) — binary question, returns a probability of yes
  • Choice(instructions=..., criteria={...}) — picks one label, returns the full distribution plus confidence
  • Score(instructions=..., criteria=[...]) — grades against an ordered rubric, returns an expected value plus confidence

TypeSafeClassifier is a LangChain Runnable[ClassifierRequest, ClassifierResponse], so it drops into a node like any other runnable. Up to 32 questions share one request and are answered independently — your code combines them.

Reach for one when a node generates text only so you can parse a decision out of it: routing, triage, filtering, guardrails, or per-item classification over a batch.

Do not reach for one when the node's output is the product (summaries, drafts, code) or when the judgment needs multi-step reasoning. A decision model classifies; it does not think.


Install and wire

langchain-typesafe is alpha (0.0.1a3) and TypeSafeClassifier is marked @beta — pin it and expect churn.

uv add langchain-typesafe

Three ways to reach a model. The classifier POSTs to {base_url}/v1/systemone with Authorization: Bearer {api_key}, so switching providers is constructor arguments only:

```python import os from langchain_typesafe import TypeSafeClassifier

1. TypeSafe directly (Jev). Reads TYPESAFE_API_KEY when api_key is omitted.

classifier = TypeSafeClassifier(model="jev-latest")

2. SemIf, hosted on the LangSmith Gateway. Note: LangSmith key, not a TypeSafe key.

classifier = TypeSafeClassifier( model="semif-qwen3.5-4b", api_key=os.environ["LANGSMITH_API_KEY"], base_url="https://gateway.smith.langchain.com", )

3. Jev through the Gateway (BYOK). The typesafe/ prefix routes to a

TYPESAFE_API_KEY stored in LangSmith workspace secrets. Without that secret

every typesafe/* id returns 424 Failed Dependency -- before the model name is

even validated, so a 424 does not confirm the id is real.

classifier = TypeSafeClassifier( model="typesafe/jev-1.13.0", api_key=os.environ["LANGSMITH_API_KEY"], base_url="https://gateway.smith.langchain.com", )

</python>
</ex-wiring>

---

## The conversion pattern

Ask every question about a page/item in **one** request, put the typed response in state, and let a plain function route on it. The router is ordinary Python — testable without touching a network.

<ex-classify-and-route>
<python>
```python
from typing import TypedDict
from langchain_typesafe import ClassifierResponse, Noul, Score, TypeSafeClassifier
from langgraph.graph import StateGraph, START, END

QUESTIONS = {
    "relevant": Score(
        instructions="How relevant is this ticket to a billing problem?",
        criteria=["Unrelated.", "Possibly related.", "Directly about billing."],
    ),
    "angry": Noul(instructions="Is the customer expressing anger?"),
}

class State(TypedDict):
    text: str
    answers: ClassifierResponse
    route: str

classifier = TypeSafeClassifier(model="jev-latest")

def classify(state: State) -> dict:
    # One request, every question. They are answered independently.
    return {"answers": classifier.invoke(
        {"state": state["text"], "questions": QUESTIONS}
    )}

def route(state: State) -> str:
    a = state["answers"]
    if a.nouls["angry"].noul > 0.7:
        return "escalate"
    if a.scores["relevant"].score < 0.5:
        return "close"
    return "handle"

Reading answers: response.nouls[id].noul, response.choices[id].choice, response.scores[id].score. Each view is keyed by your question id; response.answers holds them all.


Three traps when reading answers

These cause silent misrouting, not exceptions.

1. Score.score is an expected value, not a level. It is a probability-weighted average over the rubric and is routinely fractional. score == 0 almost never fires — a "not responsive" item lands at 0.07, not 0. Always compare against a band.

if a.scores["relevant"].score < 0.5:   # correct
if a.scores["relevant"].score == 0:    # WRONG -- nearly never true

2. Confidence measures distribution shape, not correctness. On a Score, confidence reports how concentrated the rubric distribution is. An item sitting cleanly between two levels scores low confidence even when the model is entirely clear about it. A blanket confidence < X -> escalate rule therefore escalates items the model already decided. Gate on confidence only inside the ambiguous middle:

if score < NOT_RELEVANT:                          # decisive -- trust it
    return "close"
Show the whole skill (92 more lines)

if score < RELEVANT or confidence < MIN_CONF: # ambiguous -- escalate return "human_review" return "handle"


**3. Thresholds do not transfer between models.** Calibration is part of the model. The same policy over the same items routes differently on Jev vs SemIf vs an LLM adapter. Re-tune thresholds whenever you change models, and pin the model id.

---

## Question wording dominates accuracy

A loose question produces confident wrong answers, and no threshold fixes it. Use `criteria` to say what each outcome means, including what should *not* count.

In a measured case, "Is this a confidential communication with a lawyer?" scored a routine finance memo at **0.798**. Rewriting it to name the actual test — written by or to a lawyer, with an explicit carve-out for finance and accounting content — moved the same page to **0.005** while a genuinely privileged page held at **0.991**.

```python
Noul(
    instructions=(
        "Was this written by or to a lawyer, or does it convey a lawyer's legal "
        "advice? Answer no for ordinary business or accounting discussion, even "
        "when the subject is litigation-sensitive."
    ),
    criteria=NoulCriteria(
        true="A named attorney is author or recipient, or it relays legal advice.",
        false="Business or accounting content with no attorney involved.",
    ),
)

Before blaming the model, rewrite the question and re-measure.


Auditing an existing agent

To find where a decision model fits, look for these in the codebase — see references/conversion-playbook.md for the full walkthrough.

Signal What to look for
Generate-then-parse An LLM call whose output is immediately regex'd, json.loads'd, or string-matched into a branch
Prompted classifiers Prompts containing "respond with one of", "answer yes or no", "rate from 1 to 5"
Sampling for cost Comments or configs that check only the first N items because checking all is too expensive
Brittle rules Keyword lists or regexes standing in for semantic judgment
Re-reading context The same document re-sent to a model for each separate question

The last two matter most: cheap semantic judgments change what you can build, not just the bill. If evaluating every item became affordable, what would you stop sampling?


Expectations

Measured on a 24-item batch, identical LangGraph graph and routing policy, only the classifier swapped:

per item tokens (6 items) notes
Jev 1.13.0 0.27s 3,648 in / 318 out reports usage
SemIf 4B 0.49s not reported hosted on the Gateway
Claude Sonnet 5 2.87s 7,930 in / 864 out via structured output

Routing agreed on 4–5 of 6 items across engines; disagreements clustered on genuinely borderline items. Treat these as shape, not benchmarks — measure on your own workload.

If you compare against an LLM baseline, use method="json_schema" so the comparison is fair. LangChain's with_structured_output defaults to method="function_calling", which injects a tool schema into every request — 556/35 tokens versus 228/12 for the native output_config.format path on the same one-field probe.


Batching with Send

Classification is per-item and independent, so fan out with Send and let each item route on its own.

```python from langgraph.types import Send

def fan_out(state): return [Send("classify_item", {"text": t}) for t in state["items"]]

builder.add_conditional_edges(START, fan_out, ["classify_item"])

</python>
</ex-fan-out>

Fan-out hides latency, so it flatters slow classifiers most: in the run above, Sonnet gained 8x from concurrency and Jev only 1.4x — yet Jev still finished first. Compare throughput, not the speedup multiple.

---

## Related skills

- **langgraph-fundamentals** — StateGraph, `Send`, `Command`, conditional edges
- **langgraph-human-in-the-loop** — `interrupt()` for the escalation branch above
- **langchain-middleware** — structured output when you need an LLM, not a classifier