npx skills add ...
npx skills add langchain-ai/langchain-skills --skill 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.
npx skills add langchain-ai/langchain-skills --skill langgraph-decision-models
Noul(instructions=...) — binary question, returns a probability of yesChoice(instructions=..., criteria={...}) — picks one label, returns the full distribution plus confidenceScore(instructions=..., criteria=[...]) — grades against an ordered rubric, returns an expected value plus confidenceTypeSafeClassifier 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.
langchain-typesafe is alpha (0.0.1a3) and TypeSafeClassifier is marked @beta — pin it and expect churn.
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:
classifier = TypeSafeClassifier(model="jev-latest")
classifier = TypeSafeClassifier( model="semif-qwen3.5-4b", api_key=os.environ["LANGSMITH_API_KEY"], base_url="https://gateway.smith.langchain.com", )
typesafe/ prefix routes to atypesafe/* id returns 424 Failed Dependency -- before the model name isclassifier = TypeSafeClassifier( model="typesafe/jev-1.13.0", api_key=os.environ["LANGSMITH_API_KEY"], base_url="https://gateway.smith.langchain.com", )
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Before blaming the model, rewrite the question and re-measure.
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?
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.
Classification is per-item and independent, so fan out with Send and let each item route on its own.
def fan_out(state): return [Send("classify_item", {"text": t}) for t in state["items"]]
builder.add_conditional_edges(START, fan_out, ["classify_item"])
if a.scores["relevant"].score < 0.5: # correct
if a.scores["relevant"].score == 0: # WRONG -- nearly never trueif score < NOT_RELEVANT: # decisive -- trust it
return "close"
if score < RELEVANT or confidence < MIN_CONF: # ambiguous -- escalate
return "human_review"
return "handle"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.",
),
)