digline
Regression testing for LLM applications — with the baseline in your repository, not on someone's server.
Your prompt worked on Tuesday. On Thursday it works a little less — not enough to break, enough for a user to notice in two weeks. No ordinary test catches it, because there is no correct output to compare against, only a better or a worse one.
digline gives you an approved reference — the baseline — and on every change
tells you whether you are below it: which case, which check, by how much. The
baseline is a JSON file in your repository, so it goes through code review and
it rolls back with git. No server, no account, no network call you have not
configured yourself.
$ digline compare --suite suite.py --run latest
2 checks got worse compared with the reference. Every case could be judged. No case is suspended. The suite is unchanged from the reference.
how-do-i-return · llm_rubric · Score fell from 1.000000 to 0.700000.
how-do-i-return · contains · Went from passing to failing (1.000000 → 0.000000).
Why digline
Most evaluation tools tell you whether an output is below a threshold. digline also tells you whether it is worse than it was — the drift from 0.91 to 0.78 that trips no threshold and is the first thing a user feels.
The suite is Python, not YAML: a judge is an object, a target is a function, and what may leave a perimeter is declared in code — none of which a configuration file expresses without reinventing a language. Where a suite is plain data it can be TOML instead, and the two forms build the same objects — what TOML cannot express, it refuses by name rather than half-supporting. Built for teams shipping LLM features for someone else, who have to show a customer what was tested, when, under which commit, and who approved it.
Wondering how digline differs from promptfoo, DeepEval, or observability platforms? See How digline compares.
Quickstart
With uv (recommended):
uv init && uv add digline
or with pip in an existing environment: pip install digline.
Requires Python 3.12+, which uv fetches for you if you do not have it. On
the pip path an older interpreter says ERROR: No matching distribution found
with from versions: none, which does not say why — that is what it means.
suite.py — complete and runnable, no API key:
"""suite.py — complete and runnable: no API key, nothing else to install."""
from digline.core import Contains, CostBudget, JudgeReply, LlmRubric
from digline.run import Case, Response, Suite
ANSWERS = {
"where-is-my-order": "Order 4821 ships Thursday. — Northwind Support",
"how-do-i-return": "Any item, within 30 days, unused. — Northwind Support",
}
def judge(prompt: str) -> JudgeReply:
"""Your judge. digline composes `prompt` from the rubric, the question and
the answer; it wants a score in [0, 1] and a reason back."""
signed = "Northwind Support" in prompt
concise = len(prompt.split()) <= 60
return JudgeReply(
score=0.4 + 0.3 * signed + 0.3 * concise,
reason=f"signed={signed}, concise={concise}",
)
def target(case: Case) -> Response:
"""Your application, called once per case. Canned here so this runs as is."""
text = ANSWERS[case.id]
return Response(output=text, cost_usd=0.004 + 0.001 * len(text) / 100)
suite = Suite(
tenant="northwind",
environment="staging",
name="support",
assertions=[
Contains(needle="Northwind Support"),
LlmRubric(
rubric="Does the reply answer the question in at most three sentences?",
judge=judge,
threshold=0.7,
tolerance=0.05,
),
CostBudget(max_usd=0.02, tolerance=0.05),
],
cases=[Case(id="where-is-my-order"), Case(id="how-do-i-return")],
)
When your judge is a real model, add a provider plugin:
uv add digline-anthropic (or pip install digline-anthropic), likewise
digline-openai and digline-bedrock.
$ digline run --suite suite.py
2026-08-26T15-44-09-282929-00-00-e7421ec503ccefe8
$ digline promote --suite suite.py --run latest
support baseline set to 2026-08-26T15-44-09-282929-00-00-e7421ec503ccefe8
Now make it worse — delete — Northwind Support from the second answer —
and ask again:
$ digline run --suite suite.py
2026-08-26T15-44-09-492722-00-00-e7421ec503ccefe8
$ digline compare --suite suite.py --run latest
2 checks got worse compared with the reference. Every case could be judged. No case is suspended. The suite is unchanged from the reference.
how-do-i-return · llm_rubric · Score fell from 1.000000 to 0.700000.
how-do-i-return · contains · Went from passing to failing (1.000000 → 0.000000).
$ echo $?
1
The exit code is the answer: 0 fine, 1 got worse, 2 could not be judged.
Everything lands in .digline/<tenant>/ — baselines/ committed, runs/
git-ignored through a .gitignore digline writes for you.
What it checks
Per case — pure functions (inputs) -> Verdict, no I/O, callable on their own:
| Assertion | Use it when |
|---|---|
Equals, Contains, NotContains, Affix, Regex |
the output must, or must not, contain something specific |
IsJson, JsonSchema |
the output is structured |
Length |
answers are growing, or must fit a channel |
Levenshtein |
"close enough" to Case.expected, graded rather than binary |
LlmRubric |
the criterion is a judgement — is it polite, does it stay on policy |
Faithfulness |
RAG: is the answer supported by the retrieved context |
FromAutoevals |
you already have an autoevals scorer and want it under a baseline |
PiiAbsent |
the output reaches a person — IBAN, codice fiscale, partita IVA, email, phone, checksum-verified where one exists |
ToolsCalled |
the target is an agent: which tools it called, in order — an answer produced without the lookup that should have produced it |
ToolCalledWith |
the other half of a trajectory: the arguments a tool was called with — the right tool asked the wrong question |
CostBudget, LatencyBudget |
always. Graded, so a cost creeping up within budget is still visible |
Repeated |
the judge oscillates: grade the same output n times and fold the votes |
Per run — one verdict on the whole suite, the kind that goes in a contract:
| Aggregate | Use it when |
|---|---|
Precision |
false positives are what your users see |
Recall |
what is missed is what your users miss |
Accuracy, F1 |
you need a single number for both |
Every assertion carries a threshold that can fail — there is no default that
passes vacuously, and Contains("") is a ValueError when the suite loads
rather than a green run — and a tolerance below which a difference from the
baseline is noise. Where a number is really "k out of n", write it as one:
min_agreement="2/3", and a float no k/n can produce is refused at
construction.
One card each — parameters, typical values, what to watch out for — in
docs/metrics.md. Custom assertion? Subclass
AssertionBase, or RunAssertionBase for an aggregate: docs/api.md.
How it thinks
- The judge is yours. digline never calls a model API: you inject a function, and in your tests you inject a deterministic one.
- Three states, not two —
pass,fail,error. An error is neither green nor a regression: it means could not judge, and a run containing one cannot become the baseline. - Two kinds of noise, two answers.
Suite.samplesasks the target more than once — the same input answered differently.Repeatedgrades the same output more than once — the judge changing its mind.min_agreementbecomes mandatory as soon as you sample. - A tolerance is declared; a noise floor is measured. A sampled run records the interval its own samples spanned, and a drop that stays inside the baseline's interval is reported as unchanged rather than as a regression — a tool that cries wolf on its own measurement error teaches people to promote past it. It never rescues a flip, and it never invents an interval it does not have.
- Set the threshold where the system measurably is, not where you want it: the gate protects against getting worse, and raising the bar is a visible change in a pull request.
- Promote the median of several runs, not the first green one —
digline viewis the table you pick it from. Cases diagnose, aggregates gate.
Worked through with real numbers in docs/guide.md; the
reasoning behind every fixed decision is in docs/adr/.
Commands
| Command | |
|---|---|
digline run |
execute the suite, write the run, print its key. A run killed part way through is finished with --resume, which re-pays for the cases nobody has an answer to and nothing else — docs/api.md |
digline compare |
headline plus the lines that got worse; --json, --json full for CI |
digline diff |
what differs between two runs, neither of them a baseline — for "should I switch?" rather than "did it get worse?". Always exits 0: it is a report, not a verdict — docs/diff.md |
digline promote |
make a run the baseline — refused if the tenant differs, the configuration changed, or any check errored |
digline report |
self-contained HTML for readers who do not read code; --locale mandatory, --redacted keeps the verdicts and drops the payload. With no baseline yet it renders the run on its own and says so, so the first run is readable before anything is promoted |
digline explain |
the same facts read back at length, in prose: what ran, what moved, against which measured interval, what differed underneath. Compares when there is a baseline and reads the run alone when there is not. --json emits the fact list the prose is rendered from. It states, and never advises — docs/explain.md |
digline rejudge |
judge a stored run's recorded answers again — a changed judge, rubric or threshold, over the same answers, at no cost to the target. The run it writes declares where the answers came from and cannot be promoted — docs/rejudge.md |
digline list |
stored runs, newest first, baseline marked |
digline view |
local browser UI — docs/view.md |
digline migrate |
bring stored runs forward across schema versions — docs/migrate.md |
Examples
Ten projects in examples/, each answering a question somebody
actually arrives with. Every one runs with no API key, carries its committed
report.html, and is a standalone project: copy the directory anywhere and
uv sync works.
- I have a classifier: how do I keep it under control? — labelled cases, an agreement check,
PrecisionandAccuracyas the gate - I'm writing a prompt and have no application yet — a prompt in a file, and the report showing its diff next to what it moved
- I have a RAG: how do I check it doesn't make things up? — frozen retrieval,
Faithfulness,PiiAbsent - My application is Java: can I use this? —
HttpTargetagainst a service digline cannot import - My app is LangChain4j: what do I put in my repo? — the walkthrough: one endpoint, three files, the CI gate
- My pipeline is LangChain: what changed when I upgraded it? — the chain called in process,
FakeListChatModelin CI, one line to a real model - My agent calls the right tools, but with the right arguments? — a LangGraph agent judged on its trajectory:
ToolsCalledfor the order,ToolCalledWithfor the arguments, the tools real and the model scripted - My RAG is LlamaIndex: is it still answering from the right page? — a live query engine, retrieval measured by
Faithfulnessagainst the page each case declares - My team does not write Python: can we still gate a prompt? — a
suite.tomland acases.json, no code in the suite - My suite is green today: who watches it on Thursday? — the operator loop: a scheduled re-run, draw told from drift, an issue opened in your repo
What digline is not
- Not an observability platform. Dashboards over production traces are a served market. What is designed and not yet built is narrower: evaluating production responses inside your perimeter, and turning a failure into a committed test case.
- Not a red-teaming tool. digline generates no attacks. Once one is found,
it becomes a
Case, and the suite makes sure it never works again. - Not YAML. The suite is Python — or, within declared limits, TOML: cases were always data, and now the rules can be too. A judge with rules of its own, a computed request body and a custom assertion stay Python, and the loader names the wall you hit rather than half-supporting it.
- Not a funnel. Two commitments, by design and for good: no hosted service that receives your payloads, and no data collection. The baseline lives in your repo; the runs happen on your machines. If digline ever grows paid features, they will run inside your perimeter too.
Status
0.12.0, pre-1.0. The offline cycle — write the suite, run, promote, compare,
report — is complete, covered by tests, and used daily on a real project, and
since 0.5.0 the suite may be written as data as well as in Python. The API may
still change before 1.0; the baseline format is versioned and migrates. The
production store, the bridge from production failures back to committed cases,
and the reactive side are designed in
ADR 0002 and not
written yet.
Python 3.12+. One runtime dependency: jsonschema.
Docs
docs/guide.md— how to reason with digline, in eight chapters and the order the problems arrive: baseline, judge noise, sampling, tolerance, threshold, which run to promote, what to gate on, what to maintaindocs/metrics.md— a card per assertion and aggregate: when to reach for it, what it produces, what it will do to you if you are not lookingdocs/api.md— what is imported from where, every assertion and its parameters, custom assertions, and the complete example inexamples/quickstart/, which a test runs on every builddocs/declarative.md— the suite as data: the TOML format, key by key, what it deliberately cannot say, and how to move a suite between the two forms without losing its baselinedocs/view.md·docs/migrate.md— the two commands with a surface of their ownAGENTS.md— how a coding agent should operate digline in your repodocs/adr/— the architectural decisions, numbered, with the reasoning
License
Apache-2.0.
Release files for digline 0.12.0
For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.
Source distribution (sdist)
| File | Size | Uploaded | |
|---|---|---|---|
| digline-0.12.0.tar.gz | 1.2 MB | Details |
Built distribution (wheel)
| File | Interpreter | ABI | Platform | Reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| digline-0.12.0-py3-none-any.whl | Python 3 | none | any | Details |
Total release size: 1.5 MB
Release files / digline-0.12.0.tar.gz
| Download URL | digline-0.12.0.tar.gz |
|---|---|
| Size | 1.2 MB |
| Tags | Source |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
4771c65467217ea44821ed71ff7fa052e72f5178955ffe5342ab48eca638c542
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
138c50e22d5dfeb12b23169ea6490da6235ed4423ccb22ea61c334ba45a61bd3
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
Yes |
| Uploaded via |
twine/7.0.0 CPython/3.13.14
|
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
PyPI Publish Attestation
PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.
Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Sep 13, 2026.
Transparency logRelease files / digline-0.12.0-py3-none-any.whl
| Download URL | digline-0.12.0-py3-none-any.whl |
|---|---|
| Size | 307.7 kB |
| Tags | Python 3 |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
af73bae3515324e8fc890de0af8c59d919714fdd72d2976293f6aff0292bea34
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
66c269e1bead7149b44e33e8b6e1a99675281ed7220b3553cad19b1d1b8fe279
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
Yes |
| Uploaded via |
twine/7.0.0 CPython/3.13.14
|
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
PyPI Publish Attestation
PyPI verified that this artifact, at this checksum, originated from the publisher listed below.
Signed by GitHub Actions, verified by PyPI on Sep 13, 2026.
Transparency log