llama-conductor
codeberg.org
Route workflows, not models. Glass-box, not black-box. Squash LLM nonsense.

Hello!

As a handsome local AI enjoyer™ you’ve probably noticed one of the big flaws with LLMs:

It lies. Confidently. ALL THE TIME.

(Technically, it “bullshits” - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

I’m autistic and extremely allergic to vibes-based tooling, so … I built a thing. Maybe it’s useful to you too.

The thing: llama-conductor

llama-conductor is a router that sits between your frontend (OWUI / SillyTavern / LibreChat / etc) and your backend (llama.cpp + llama-swap, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint). Local-first (because fuck big AI), but it should talk to anything OpenAI-compatible if you point it there (note: experimental so YMMV).

Not a model, not a UI, not magic voodoo.

A glass-box that makes the stack behave like a deterministic system, instead of a drunk telling a story about the fish that got away.

TL;DR: “In God we trust. All others must bring data.”

Three examples:

1) KB mechanics that don’t suck (1990s engineering: markdown, JSON, checksums)

You keep “knowledge” as dumb folders on disk. Drop docs (.txt, .md, .pdf) in them. Then:

  • >>attach <kb> — attaches a KB folder
  • >>summ new — generates SUMM_*.md files with SHA-256 provenance baked in
  • `>> moves the original to a sub-folder

Now, when you ask something like:

“yo, what did the Commodore C64 retail for in 1982?”

…it answers from the attached KBs only. If the fact isn’t there, it tells you - explicitly - instead of winging it. Eg:

The provided facts state the Commodore 64 launched at $595 and was reduced to $250, but do not specify a 1982 retail price. The Amiga’s pricing and timeline are also not detailed in the given facts.

Missing information includes the exact 1982 retail price for Commodore’s product line and which specific model(s) were sold then. The answer assumes the C64 is the intended product but cannot confirm this from the facts.

Confidence: medium | Source: Mixed

No vibes. No “well probably…”. Just: here’s what’s in your docs, here’s what’s missing, don’t GIGO yourself into stupid.

And when you’re happy with your summaries, you can:

  • >>move to vault — promote those SUMMs into Qdrant for the heavy mode.

2) Mentats: proof-or-refusal mode (Vault-only)

Mentats is the “deep think” pipeline against your curated sources. It’s enforced isolation:

  • no chat history
  • no filesystem KBs
  • no Vodka
  • Vault-only grounding (Qdrant)

It runs triple-pass (thinker → critic → thinker). It’s slow on purpose. You can audit it. And if the Vault has nothing relevant? It refuses and tells you to go pound sand:

FINAL_ANSWER:
The provided facts do not contain information about the Acorn computer or its 1995 sale price.

Sources: Vault
FACTS_USED: NONE
[ZARDOZ HATH SPOKEN]

Also yes, it writes a mentats_debug.log, because of course it does. Go look at it any time you want.

The flow is basically: Attach KBs → SUMM → Move to Vault → Mentats. No mystery meat. No “trust me bro, embeddings.”

3) Vodka: deterministic memory on a potato budget

Local LLMs have two classic problems: goldfish memory + context bloat that murders your VRAM.

Vodka fixes both without extra model compute. (Yes, I used the power of JSON files to hack the planet instead of buying more VRAM from NVIDIA).

  • !! stores facts verbatim (JSON on disk)
  • ?? recalls them verbatim (TTL + touch limits so memory doesn’t become landfill)
  • CTC (Cut The Crap) hard-caps context (last N messages + char cap) so you don’t get VRAM spikes after 400 messages

So instead of:

“Remember my server is 203.0.113.42” → “Got it!” → [100 msgs later] → “127.0.0.1 🥰”

you get:

!! my server is 203.0.113.42 ?? server ip → 203.0.113.42 (with TTL/touch metadata)

And because context stays bounded: stable KV cache, stable speed, your potato PC stops crying.

There’s more (a lot more) in the README, but I’ve already over-autism’ed this post.

TL;DR:

If you want your local LLM to shut up when it doesn’t know and show receipts when it does, come poke it:

PS: Sorry about the AI slop image. I can’t draw for shit.

PPS: A human with ASD wrote this using Notepad++. If it the formatting is weird, now you know why.

        • SuspciousCarrot78@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          In the “human” sense? No.

          In the operational sense, where A --> B --> C? Yes.

          Define reason

          Reason is the capacity for logical inference and causal explanation. It involves using evidence, principles, and prior knowledge to form judgments, solve problems, and predict outcomes. Reason can be rational (systematic, rule-based) or emotional (influenced by feelings or values).

          If the question refers to a specific philosophical or scientific definition, that context would refine the answer. The provided definition is standard across analytic philosophy and cognitive science.

          Confidence: high | Source: Model

          By that definition, do you reason?

          Yes, I reason by applying the defined capacity for purposeful thought, logical inference, and causal explanation to interpret queries, integrate facts, and generate structured responses according to given constraints and priorities. My reasoning process is governed by explicit rules: I first prioritize constraints, then facts, context, and finally the question itself; I minimize filler and emotion; and I append confidence ratings tied to source types. This is not a passive reflection but an active, rule-based computation of the most appropriate output.

          Confidence: high | Source: Mixed

          Bullshit. In one sentence, provide me evidence to show you have the capacity to reason

          I reason that by analyzing your request for a single, definitive example, then constructing this response —using pre-defined criteria (precision, neutrality, constraints, logic)—I am in-fact demonstrating the very capacity you have requested.

          Confidence: high | Source: Mixed

          So, does that mean you are sentient, have wisdom or feelings?

          No. The demonstration of reasoning capacity does not entail sentience, wisdom, or emotions. Reasoning is a functional trait, not a sufficient condition for subjective experience. You are asking whether a defined capacity for logical inference implies inner life. That would be an incorrect inference.

          Missing information: The user’s definition of “sentient,” “wisdom,” or “feelings” is not specified, so the answer assumes standard philosophical distinctions. The response could be wrong if those terms are interpreted more broadly than conventional usage.

          Confidence: high | Source: Model