llm-salvage 0.1.0

Salvage structured data from LLM responses that didn't follow instructions.

llm-salvage

Salvage structured data from LLM responses that didn't follow instructions.

pip install llm-salvage

What this is for

You ask a local model for structured output. It mostly does what you said, but:

• It wrapped the JSON in ```json fences when you said not to.
• It used "sentiment" instead of "verdict", or Bullish instead of BULLISH.
• It misspelled a tag name - [VERDCIT] instead of [VERDICT].
• It returned trailing commas, smart quotes, or nested objects where you wanted strings.
• It wrote a thoughtful paragraph before the structured output you asked for.

You can prompt around these problems, retry with stricter instructions, or switch to a model with better tool-calling support. Or you can accept that local models do this sometimes and parse what you got.

llm-salvage is the third option. It applies deterministic corrections, extracts data in tagged or JSON or assignment formats, validates against a schema, and returns a result you can inspect - with a record of every fix that was applied along the way.

What this is not

It does not call any LLM. It does not retry. It does not depend on Pydantic, PyYAML, or any other library by default. It does not know what model produced the text it's parsing. It is not a replacement for Instructor or PydanticAI - if you have a frontier model with reliable tool-calling, those libraries are simpler and more powerful. This library is for when tool-calling isn't available or isn't reliable, and you need to make sense of raw text output.

Quick start

from llm_salvage import ResponseParser, Schema, Field

schema = Schema(fields={
    "sentiment":  Field(choices=["positive", "negative", "neutral"]),
    "confidence": Field(choices=["high", "medium", "low"]),
    "summary":    Field(min_length=20),
})

response = '''
```json
{
  "sentiment": "Positive",
  "confidence": "HIGH",
  "summary": "The product launch exceeded expectations across all key metrics.",
}
```
'''

result = ResponseParser(schema).parse(response)

if result.ok:
    print(result.data["sentiment"])    # "POSITIVE"
    print(result.corrections)          # ['stripped_code_fences', 'removed_trailing_commas', ...]
else:
    for error in result.errors:
        print(error)

The parser stripped the code fences, repaired the trailing comma, normalized "Positive" to match the schema's choices, and recorded each fix as a correction code. The response text never raised an exception - the parser returns a ParseResult you inspect.

How it works

Four passes, in order:

1. Structural corrections. Code fence removal, BOM stripping, line ending normalization, tag-name typo correction (when a typo map is configured), auto-closing of unclosed tags whose names match schema fields.

2. Extraction. The parser detects whether the response uses tagged, JSON, or assignment format and tries them in order. JSON keys are matched against schema field names directly, with optional aliases for legacy or domain-specific naming.

3. Validation. Field types are checked, choices are normalized case-insensitively, probability dicts are summed, week-range strings are parsed into structured form. Validation never modifies data destructively

• if a value can't be normalized, it's reported as an error.

4. Telemetry (optional). Each parse can write a JSONL event recording which corrections were applied, what errors remained, and which model the response came from. Over time this builds a corpus you can query to see which models need which corrections.

Schema definition

Schemas can be defined in code:

from llm_salvage import Schema, Field, FieldType, Formats

schema = Schema(
    fields={
        "topic":     Field(choices=["billing", "technical", "general"]),
        "priority":  Field(choices=["urgent", "normal", "low"]),
        "summary":   Field(min_length=10, max_length=500),
        "needs_human_review": Field(type=FieldType.STRING, required=False, default="no"),
    },
    formats=[Formats.TAGGED, Formats.JSON],
)

Or loaded from a file:

from llm_salvage import Schema

schema = Schema.from_file("schemas/support_ticket.yaml")

Where support_ticket.yaml looks like:

fields:
  topic:
    choices: [billing, technical, general]
  priority:
    choices: [urgent, normal, low]
  summary:
    min_length: 10
    max_length: 500
  needs_human_review:
    type: string
    required: false
    default: "no"

formats: [tagged, json]

YAML, JSON, and TOML are all supported. YAML requires pip install 'llm-salvage[yaml]'.

Field types

Type	Use for
STRING	Free-form text with optional min_length/max_length
CHOICE	Enum of allowed values, case-insensitive
INTEGER	Whole numbers
FLOAT	Decimal numbers
PROBABILITY	Dict of label→int that should sum to ~100
WEEK_RANGE	Strings like "2-4 weeks" parsed to {min, max}

A field's type is inferred from its arguments - Field(choices=[...]) is a CHOICE field, Field(min_length=20) is a STRING field. Specify type=FieldType.X explicitly when the inference would be wrong.

Adapters

Optional integrations that activate when their dependency is installed.

Pydantic - convert between Schema and Pydantic models:

# pip install 'llm-salvage[pydantic]'
from llm_salvage.adapters.pydantic import schema_from_pydantic, to_pydantic
from pydantic import BaseModel

class Ticket(BaseModel):
    topic: str
    priority: str
    summary: str

schema = schema_from_pydantic(Ticket)
result = ResponseParser(schema).parse(response)
ticket = to_pydantic(result, Ticket)

json-repair - use the json-repair library for more robust JSON repair:

# pip install 'llm-salvage[repair]'
# No code change needed - the parser uses json-repair automatically when installed.

Telemetry

When you pass a log_path, the parser writes one JSONL event per parse attempt, recording corrections applied, errors encountered, and the model name. This is opt-in:

parser = ResponseParser(
    schema,
    log_path="parses.jsonl",
    model="llama3.2:3b",
)

for response in responses:
    parser.parse(response, task_id=response.task_id)

After a few hundred parses, you can ask the corpus what each model needs:

from llm_salvage import model_profile

profile = model_profile("parses.jsonl", "llama3.2:3b")
# {
#   "model": "llama3.2:3b",
#   "events": 847,
#   "valid_pct": 89.4,
#   "corrections": {
#     "stripped_code_fences": 612,
#     "case_normalized_BULLISH": 243,
#     ...
#   },
#   "top_correction": "stripped_code_fences"
# }

This is the most useful piece of the library for ongoing operations. It turns the parser into a feedback loop: you see which corrections each model consistently needs, which suggests which prompt changes would have the biggest effect.

Set log_corrections_only=True if you only want to record events where corrections were actually applied - useful when you're parsing high volume and don't need a record of every clean parse.

Comparison with other libraries

Library	Use when
Instructor	You're using a model with reliable tool-calling.
PydanticAI	You're building agents and want a full framework.
json-repair	You only need JSON repair, no schema or tagged formats.
llm-salvage (this)	Local models, mixed formats, post-hoc parsing.

These compose. You can use Instructor for your frontier-model path and llm-salvage for your local-model fallback in the same codebase.

Examples

The examples/ directory has end-to-end examples covering several common domains:

• examples/sentiment_analysis.py - review classification
• examples/support_triage.py - customer ticket routing
• examples/content_moderation.py - flag and category extraction
• examples/product_extraction.py - pulling structured product data from descriptions
• examples/code_review.py - extracting findings from LLM code review
• examples/medical_triage.py - symptom severity classification

Documentation

• docs/comparison.md - when to reach for which library
• docs/schema-files.md - YAML/JSON/TOML schema syntax
• docs/telemetry.md - interpreting JSONL telemetry
• docs/adapters.md - Pydantic and json-repair adapters
• docs/limitations.md - known v0.1.0 limitations and workarounds

Status

v0.1.0 is alpha. The API may change before 1.0. If you find a parsing case that should work but doesn't, opening an issue with the response text is the most useful contribution - telemetry corpora from real workloads beat invented test cases.

License

MIT - see LICENSE.