{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_guardrails","slug":"guardrails","name":"Guardrails","type":"product","url":"https://www.guardrailsai.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/guardrails","categories":["automation"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_0","uri":"capability://validation.llm.output.validation.against.structured.schemas","name":"llm output validation against structured schemas","description":"Validates LLM-generated outputs against predefined schemas and constraints to ensure they conform to expected formats and data types. Catches malformed responses before they reach downstream systems.","intents":["I need to ensure LLM outputs match my required JSON schema","I want to validate that API responses have the correct structure","I need to reject outputs that don't conform to my data model"],"best_for":["backend engineers","API developers","data pipeline builders"],"limitations":["requires upfront schema definition","cannot validate semantic correctness beyond structure"],"requires":["schema definition","LLM integration point"],"input_types":["text","JSON","structured data"],"output_types":["boolean validation result","structured data with validation metadata"],"categories":["validation","productivity"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_1","uri":"capability://validation.hallucination.detection.and.correction","name":"hallucination detection and correction","description":"Identifies when LLMs generate false or unsupported claims and automatically corrects them using provided context or knowledge sources. Reduces factual errors in AI-generated content.","intents":["I need to prevent my AI from making up facts","I want to catch false information before users see it","I need to ground LLM responses in verified data"],"best_for":["content teams","customer-facing AI applications","knowledge-based systems"],"limitations":["requires ground truth data or context","may over-correct valid inferences","computational overhead for fact-checking"],"requires":["reference knowledge base","context documents","fact-checking validator"],"input_types":["text","LLM output","reference documents"],"output_types":["corrected text","hallucination flags","confidence scores"],"categories":["validation","reliability"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_10","uri":"capability://optimization.token.and.cost.optimization","name":"token and cost optimization","description":"Optimizes validation and correction processes to minimize token usage and API costs. Intelligently decides when to validate, correct, or accept outputs based on cost-benefit analysis.","intents":["I need to reduce my LLM API costs","I want to optimize token usage in validation pipelines","I need to balance quality and cost in production systems"],"best_for":["cost-conscious teams","high-volume applications","startups with limited budgets"],"limitations":["may reduce validation coverage","requires tuning for specific use cases","trade-off between quality and cost"],"requires":["cost models","usage analytics","optimization algorithms"],"input_types":["validation rules","cost parameters"],"output_types":["optimized validation pipeline","cost reports"],"categories":["optimization","cost-management"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_2","uri":"capability://productivity.composable.validator.chaining","name":"composable validator chaining","description":"Chains multiple validators together in sequence to apply layered validation rules to LLM outputs. Each validator can build on the results of previous validators for complex validation workflows.","intents":["I need to apply multiple validation rules in a specific order","I want to combine format validation with content validation","I need to build complex validation pipelines without writing custom code"],"best_for":["platform engineers","ML ops teams","developers building validation frameworks"],"limitations":["requires understanding validator composition","debugging complex chains can be difficult","performance scales with number of validators"],"requires":["validator library","configuration system"],"input_types":["LLM output","validation rules"],"output_types":["validated output","validation report with chain results"],"categories":["productivity","validation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_3","uri":"capability://validation.format.enforcement.for.llm.outputs","name":"format enforcement for llm outputs","description":"Enforces specific output formats (JSON, XML, CSV, etc.) on LLM responses and automatically corrects formatting errors. Ensures outputs are machine-readable and compatible with downstream systems.","intents":["I need LLM outputs in valid JSON format","I want to automatically fix malformed XML responses","I need to ensure consistent output formatting across all API calls"],"best_for":["API developers","data engineers","integration specialists"],"limitations":["cannot fix semantic errors in format","may lose information during format conversion","requires format specification"],"requires":["format specification","format parser/generator"],"input_types":["text","unstructured LLM output"],"output_types":["formatted text","structured data in specified format"],"categories":["validation","productivity"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_4","uri":"capability://security.compliance.and.policy.enforcement","name":"compliance and policy enforcement","description":"Validates LLM outputs against compliance rules, content policies, and regulatory requirements. Prevents generation of prohibited content and ensures adherence to organizational standards.","intents":["I need to ensure AI outputs comply with data privacy regulations","I want to block generation of harmful or inappropriate content","I need to enforce company content policies automatically"],"best_for":["compliance officers","enterprise security teams","regulated industry developers"],"limitations":["requires explicit policy definition","may have false positives/negatives","policies must be regularly updated"],"requires":["policy definitions","compliance validators","audit logging"],"input_types":["text","LLM output"],"output_types":["compliance status","policy violation reports","sanitized output"],"categories":["security","compliance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_5","uri":"capability://integration.framework.agnostic.llm.integration","name":"framework-agnostic llm integration","description":"Integrates guardrails with multiple LLM providers and frameworks without requiring major application refactoring. Works as a middleware layer between application and LLM calls.","intents":["I want to add validation to my existing LLM application","I need to switch LLM providers without rewriting validation logic","I want to use guardrails with my current tech stack"],"best_for":["backend engineers","platform teams","existing application maintainers"],"limitations":["requires integration point identification","some LLM-specific features may not be supported","adds latency to LLM calls"],"requires":["LLM API access","integration adapter"],"input_types":["LLM API calls","prompts"],"output_types":["validated LLM responses","integration metadata"],"categories":["integration","productivity"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_6","uri":"capability://development.custom.validator.development","name":"custom validator development","description":"Provides framework and tools for building custom validators tailored to specific validation needs. Allows developers to extend validation capabilities beyond pre-built validators.","intents":["I need to validate domain-specific business logic","I want to create custom validators for my use case","I need to implement validation rules that don't exist in the library"],"best_for":["advanced developers","platform engineers","teams with specialized validation needs"],"limitations":["requires programming expertise","maintenance burden for custom validators","testing complexity increases"],"requires":["validator SDK","development environment","testing framework"],"input_types":["validator code","validation rules"],"output_types":["custom validator module","validation results"],"categories":["development","extensibility"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_7","uri":"capability://reliability.active.error.correction.with.re.prompting","name":"active error correction with re-prompting","description":"Detects validation failures and automatically re-prompts the LLM with corrective instructions to fix the output. Iteratively improves outputs without manual intervention.","intents":["I want to automatically fix LLM output errors","I need to retry failed validations with corrective prompts","I want to improve output quality without manual review"],"best_for":["production AI systems","high-volume processing","cost-conscious teams"],"limitations":["increases LLM API calls and latency","may not fix all errors","requires well-designed corrective prompts"],"requires":["validation rules","corrective prompt templates","retry logic"],"input_types":["LLM output","validation failure details"],"output_types":["corrected LLM output","retry history"],"categories":["reliability","automation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_8","uri":"capability://monitoring.output.monitoring.and.logging","name":"output monitoring and logging","description":"Tracks and logs all LLM outputs, validation results, and corrections for audit trails and debugging. Provides visibility into validation pipeline behavior and failure patterns.","intents":["I need to audit all AI-generated outputs for compliance","I want to debug validation failures and understand why they occur","I need to track validation metrics and success rates"],"best_for":["compliance teams","DevOps engineers","system administrators"],"limitations":["storage overhead for large-scale operations","privacy considerations with logging sensitive data","requires log analysis tools"],"requires":["logging infrastructure","storage system","monitoring dashboard"],"input_types":["validation events","LLM outputs"],"output_types":["audit logs","metrics","reports"],"categories":["monitoring","compliance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_guardrails__cap_9","uri":"capability://validation.semantic.validation.with.context.awareness","name":"semantic validation with context awareness","description":"Validates LLM outputs for semantic correctness and coherence using context from the conversation or domain knowledge. Goes beyond format validation to check meaning and relevance.","intents":["I need to ensure LLM responses are contextually appropriate","I want to validate that answers are relevant to the question asked","I need to check semantic consistency across multi-turn conversations"],"best_for":["conversational AI developers","QA teams","content quality specialists"],"limitations":["requires context data","semantic validation is computationally expensive","difficult to define semantic rules precisely"],"requires":["context data","semantic validators","knowledge base"],"input_types":["LLM output","conversation context","domain knowledge"],"output_types":["semantic validation score","relevance assessment"],"categories":["validation","quality-assurance"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":44,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["schema definition","LLM integration point","reference knowledge base","context documents","fact-checking validator","cost models","usage analytics","optimization algorithms","validator library","configuration system"],"failure_modes":["requires upfront schema definition","cannot validate semantic correctness beyond structure","requires ground truth data or context","may over-correct valid inferences","computational overhead for fact-checking","may reduce validation coverage","requires tuning for specific use cases","trade-off between quality and cost","requires understanding validator composition","debugging complex chains can be difficult","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.39999999999999997,"quality":0.82,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.893Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.547Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=guardrails","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=guardrails"}},"signature":"zy7xIXB1H9DgccbBu0qmDKWvupaOHXoDObqXg1Fk04vMZxUpl2FsY0vZd+y0btlZhX/vf2QauZ4Rn/llPP9oBw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T20:08:01.548Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/guardrails","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/guardrails","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=guardrails","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}