{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler","slug":"squeezeailab--llmcompiler","name":"LLMCompiler","type":"agent","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04511","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/squeezeailab--llmcompiler","categories":["chatbot","research"],"tags":["efficient-inference","function-calling","large-language-models","llama","llama2","llm","llm-agent","llm-agents","llm-framework","llms","natural-language-processing","nlp","parallel-function-call","transformer"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"inactive","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.llm.powered.task.decomposition.with.dependency.graph.generation","name":"llm-powered task decomposition with dependency graph generation","description":"The Planner component uses an LLM to automatically decompose complex user queries into subtasks and generates a directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing task dependencies. It parses LLM outputs via StreamingGraphParser to extract task nodes, their input/output relationships, and execution constraints, enabling identification of parallelizable work without manual specification.","intents":["Automatically break down complex multi-step problems into executable subtasks without manual planning","Identify which subtasks can run in parallel vs which have sequential dependencies","Generate optimized execution plans that minimize total latency by exploiting parallelism"],"best_for":["Teams building LLM agents that need to solve complex reasoning tasks (e.g., multi-hop QA, research synthesis)","Developers wanting to reduce manual orchestration overhead in tool-calling workflows"],"limitations":["Plan quality depends on LLM capability — weaker models may generate suboptimal or invalid task graphs","No built-in validation that generated plans are actually executable before submission to executor","Streaming mode begins execution before full plan is available, risking replanning if dependencies are incomplete"],"requires":["LLM API access (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Friendli, or vLLM instance)","Python 3.8+","Tool definitions with clear input/output schemas"],"input_types":["natural language query (string)","optional in-context examples (few-shot demonstrations)"],"output_types":["task graph (DAG structure with task nodes and dependency edges)","structured task objects with tool names, arguments, and dependency references"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","task-decomposition"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_1","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.parallel.function.execution.with.dependency.aware.task.scheduling","name":"parallel function execution with dependency-aware task scheduling","description":"The TaskFetchingUnit and Executor components implement a scheduler that respects task dependencies from the generated DAG, executing independent tasks concurrently while blocking dependent tasks until their inputs are available. The system maintains a task queue, tracks completion status, and collects results for aggregation, enabling wall-clock latency reduction through parallelism.","intents":["Execute multiple independent tool calls simultaneously instead of sequentially","Automatically manage task dependencies so dependent tasks wait for their inputs","Reduce total execution time by exploiting parallelism in multi-step workflows"],"best_for":["Applications with high-latency external tools (search, APIs, databases) where parallelism provides significant speedup","Multi-hop reasoning tasks (e.g., HotpotQA, complex research) where many independent searches can run in parallel"],"limitations":["Parallelism benefit is limited by tool latency and number of independent tasks — CPU-bound operations see minimal speedup","No built-in timeout or circuit-breaker logic for hanging tool calls; failed tasks block dependents indefinitely without explicit error handling","Requires tools to be stateless or thread-safe; shared state across tool calls is not managed"],"requires":["Tool implementations that are thread-safe and support concurrent invocation","Python 3.8+ with threading/async support","Executor configured with tool registry"],"input_types":["task graph (DAG from Planner)","tool definitions with callable implementations"],"output_types":["task results (dict mapping task IDs to tool outputs)","execution trace with timing and dependency resolution"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_10","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.react.agent.integration.for.iterative.reasoning","name":"react agent integration for iterative reasoning","description":"LLMCompiler can be integrated with ReAct (Reasoning + Acting) patterns where the agent iteratively reasons about the current state, decides on actions (tool calls), observes results, and repeats. This enables adaptive behavior where the agent can adjust its strategy based on intermediate observations.","intents":["Enable iterative reasoning where the agent adapts its strategy based on intermediate results","Support both parallel and sequential execution patterns within a single framework","Combine planning-based parallelism with reactive decision-making"],"best_for":["Complex tasks requiring adaptive behavior and mid-execution strategy changes","Scenarios where initial decomposition may be incomplete and needs refinement based on observations"],"limitations":["ReAct integration adds complexity; framework must handle both planned and reactive task generation","Iterative reasoning increases latency compared to single-pass planning; no automatic optimization of iteration count","No clear separation between planned and reactive tasks; can lead to unpredictable execution patterns"],"requires":["ReAct agent implementation","LLM capable of reasoning and action generation","Tool registry for reactive tool calls"],"input_types":["initial query (string)","observation history (from previous iterations)"],"output_types":["reasoning trace (thought process)","action sequence (tool calls)","final answer"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_2","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.streaming.task.generation.and.incremental.execution","name":"streaming task generation and incremental execution","description":"When enabled, streaming mode allows the TaskFetchingUnit to begin executing tasks as soon as they are generated by the Planner's LLM output stream, without waiting for the complete plan. The StreamingGraphParser incrementally parses LLM tokens into task objects, enabling pipelined planning and execution that reduces time-to-first-result and overall latency.","intents":["Start executing tasks immediately as the Planner generates them, rather than waiting for full plan completion","Reduce perceived latency by showing intermediate results while planning continues","Pipeline planning and execution phases to improve throughput on long-running tasks"],"best_for":["Interactive applications where latency to first result matters (e.g., chatbots, real-time assistants)","Scenarios with many independent tasks where early execution of initial tasks provides value while planning continues"],"limitations":["Incomplete plans may cause replanning if early tasks reveal missing dependencies or invalid assumptions","Streaming parsing is fragile to LLM output format variations; malformed task descriptions can break incremental parsing","No rollback mechanism if early-executed tasks become invalid due to later plan changes"],"requires":["LLM provider with streaming API support (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, vLLM)","StreamingGraphParser configured to handle incremental token streams","Executor capable of handling out-of-order task completion"],"input_types":["LLM token stream (from Planner)","task definitions (parsed incrementally)"],"output_types":["task objects (as they are parsed)","execution results (as tasks complete)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_3","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.multi.provider.llm.integration.with.unified.interface","name":"multi-provider llm integration with unified interface","description":"LLMCompiler abstracts LLM provider differences through a unified model interface (src/utils/model_utils.py) that supports OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Friendli, and vLLM backends. The framework handles provider-specific API calls, token counting, and response parsing, allowing users to swap providers without changing orchestration logic.","intents":["Use different LLM providers (OpenAI, open-source via vLLM) without rewriting orchestration code","Switch between providers for cost optimization or latency reduction","Support both closed-source (GPT) and open-source (Llama) models in the same framework"],"best_for":["Teams wanting flexibility to choose LLM providers based on cost, latency, or data residency requirements","Organizations running on-premise LLMs via vLLM who need the same orchestration as cloud-based APIs"],"limitations":["Provider-specific features (e.g., vision, function calling) are not uniformly exposed; some providers may lack capabilities others have","Token counting and rate limiting are provider-specific; unified interface doesn't abstract these differences","No automatic fallback or retry logic across providers if one fails"],"requires":["API credentials for chosen provider (OpenAI key, Azure endpoint, Friendli token, or vLLM server URL)","Python 3.8+","Provider-specific SDK (openai, azure-openai, etc.)"],"input_types":["provider name (string: 'openai', 'azure', 'friendli', 'vllm')","model identifier (string)","API credentials (key, endpoint, etc.)"],"output_types":["LLM responses (text, token counts, structured outputs)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.replanning.with.execution.context.incorporation","name":"replanning with execution context incorporation","description":"LLMCompiler can generate new execution plans based on results from previous attempts, incorporating execution history and intermediate results as context to the Planner. This enables the system to adapt when initial plans fail or produce unsatisfactory results, using feedback to refine task decomposition.","intents":["Recover from failed or incomplete execution by generating alternative plans","Refine task decomposition based on intermediate results from initial execution","Iteratively improve solution quality by replanning with execution feedback"],"best_for":["Complex reasoning tasks where initial decomposition may be suboptimal (e.g., research synthesis, multi-hop QA)","Scenarios where tool failures are recoverable and alternative approaches exist"],"limitations":["Replanning adds latency and cost (additional LLM calls); no heuristic to determine when replanning is worthwhile","No limit on replanning iterations; system can loop indefinitely if plans keep failing","Requires explicit specification of what constitutes 'unsatisfactory' results; no automatic quality assessment"],"requires":["Execution results from previous plan attempt","LLM API access for generating new plans","Logic to detect when replanning is needed (user-provided or heuristic-based)"],"input_types":["original user query (string)","previous execution results (dict)","execution trace with failures/incomplete results"],"output_types":["new task graph (DAG with revised decomposition)","execution results from replanned tasks"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_5","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.tool.registry.and.schema.based.function.calling","name":"tool registry and schema-based function calling","description":"LLMCompiler maintains a registry of available tools with structured schemas defining inputs, outputs, and descriptions. The Planner uses these schemas to generate valid function calls, and the Executor uses them to invoke tools with proper argument binding. This schema-driven approach ensures type safety and enables the LLM to reason about tool capabilities.","intents":["Define available tools once and reuse them across multiple queries without manual specification","Enable the LLM to reason about tool capabilities and constraints via structured schemas","Validate tool arguments before execution to catch errors early"],"best_for":["Applications with a fixed set of tools (search, math, database queries) that are reused across many queries","Teams wanting to enforce tool usage contracts and prevent invalid function calls"],"limitations":["Tool schemas must be manually defined; no automatic schema inference from function signatures","Schema validation is basic (type checking); no support for complex constraints (e.g., conditional required fields)","Tool registry is static; adding new tools requires code changes and framework restart"],"requires":["Tool implementations (Python callables)","Schema definitions (input/output types, descriptions)","Tool registry configuration"],"input_types":["tool name (string)","tool arguments (dict matching schema)"],"output_types":["tool result (any type, defined by tool schema)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_6","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.result.aggregation.and.answer.synthesis","name":"result aggregation and answer synthesis","description":"The LLMCompilerAgent component collects results from all executed tasks and synthesizes them into a final answer using the LLM. It maintains a mapping of task IDs to results, passes this context to the LLM, and generates a coherent response that incorporates all intermediate findings.","intents":["Combine results from multiple parallel tasks into a single coherent answer","Use the LLM to synthesize and interpret task results in the context of the original query","Determine if additional tasks are needed based on intermediate results"],"best_for":["Multi-hop reasoning tasks where final answer requires synthesizing information from multiple sources","Applications needing natural language summaries of structured task results"],"limitations":["Synthesis quality depends on LLM capability; weak models may produce incoherent or hallucinated summaries","No explicit deduplication or conflict resolution when multiple tasks return contradictory information","Context window limits may prevent including all task results if there are many tasks or large outputs"],"requires":["Task results (dict mapping task IDs to outputs)","LLM API access for synthesis","Original user query for context"],"input_types":["task results (dict)","original query (string)","execution trace (optional)"],"output_types":["final answer (string)","next action (if replanning is needed)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_7","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.execution.tracing.and.performance.monitoring","name":"execution tracing and performance monitoring","description":"LLMCompiler tracks execution metadata including task timing, dependencies, tool invocations, and result sizes. This tracing enables performance analysis, debugging of failed executions, and identification of bottlenecks in task graphs. Traces can be logged and analyzed to optimize future executions.","intents":["Debug failed or slow executions by examining task timing and dependency resolution","Identify bottleneck tasks that block parallel execution","Measure latency reduction from parallelism vs sequential execution"],"best_for":["Teams optimizing LLM agent performance and wanting visibility into execution behavior","Developers debugging complex task graphs with many dependencies"],"limitations":["Tracing overhead adds latency (typically <5% but can be higher with verbose logging)","No built-in visualization of task graphs or execution timelines; traces are raw data requiring external tools","Trace storage is in-memory; no persistence to disk or external logging system by default"],"requires":["Execution to complete (traces are collected during execution)","Optional logging configuration for persistence"],"input_types":["execution events (task start, completion, tool invocation)"],"output_types":["execution trace (dict with timing, dependencies, results)","performance metrics (total latency, parallelism factor, tool latencies)"],"categories":["automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_8","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.in.context.example.specification.for.few.shot.planning","name":"in-context example specification for few-shot planning","description":"LLMCompiler allows users to provide optional in-context examples (few-shot demonstrations) that show the Planner how to decompose similar problems. These examples are included in the Planner's prompt, enabling the LLM to learn task decomposition patterns from demonstrations rather than relying solely on instructions.","intents":["Improve plan quality by providing examples of good task decompositions for similar problems","Enable domain-specific planning patterns without modifying the Planner logic","Reduce ambiguity in task decomposition by showing concrete examples"],"best_for":["Domain-specific applications where task decomposition patterns are consistent (e.g., research synthesis, multi-hop QA)","Teams wanting to customize planning behavior without code changes"],"limitations":["Few-shot examples increase prompt length and latency; no automatic optimization of example selection","Quality of examples directly impacts plan quality; poor examples can degrade performance","No validation that examples are actually representative of the problem domain"],"requires":["Example queries with corresponding task decompositions","Structured format for examples (query, expected plan, tools used)"],"input_types":["example queries (list of strings)","example task graphs (list of DAGs)"],"output_types":["improved task graphs (generated by Planner with example guidance)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"github-squeezeailab--llmcompiler__cap_9","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.benchmark.evaluation.on.multi.hop.reasoning.tasks","name":"benchmark evaluation on multi-hop reasoning tasks","description":"LLMCompiler includes built-in evaluation on standard benchmarks (ParallelQA, HotpotQA, movie recommendations) that measure accuracy, latency, and cost of the framework on multi-hop reasoning tasks. These benchmarks enable quantitative comparison of planning strategies and execution efficiency.","intents":["Measure accuracy of task decomposition and result synthesis on standard benchmarks","Compare latency and cost of parallel execution vs sequential baselines","Validate that the framework produces correct answers on complex reasoning tasks"],"best_for":["Researchers evaluating LLM agent frameworks on standard benchmarks","Teams wanting to measure performance improvements from parallelism on their specific tasks"],"limitations":["Benchmarks are limited to specific task types (QA, recommendations); may not reflect performance on other domains","Evaluation requires ground truth labels; custom tasks need manual annotation","Benchmark results depend heavily on LLM model choice; results may not transfer to different models"],"requires":["Benchmark dataset (ParallelQA, HotpotQA, etc.)","Ground truth labels for evaluation","LLM API access for running benchmarks"],"input_types":["benchmark queries (list of strings)","ground truth answers (list of strings)"],"output_types":["accuracy metrics (EM, F1, etc.)","latency measurements (total time, per-task time)","cost metrics (API calls, tokens used)"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":35,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["LLM API access (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, Friendli, or vLLM instance)","Python 3.8+","Tool definitions with clear input/output schemas","Tool implementations that are thread-safe and support concurrent invocation","Python 3.8+ with threading/async support","Executor configured with tool registry","ReAct agent implementation","LLM capable of reasoning and action generation","Tool registry for reactive tool calls","LLM provider with streaming API support (OpenAI, Azure OpenAI, vLLM)"],"failure_modes":["Plan quality depends on LLM capability — weaker models may generate suboptimal or invalid task graphs","No built-in validation that generated plans are actually executable before submission to executor","Streaming mode begins execution before full plan is available, risking replanning if dependencies are incomplete","Parallelism benefit is limited by tool latency and number of independent tasks — CPU-bound operations see minimal speedup","No built-in timeout or circuit-breaker logic for hanging tool calls; failed tasks block dependents indefinitely without explicit error handling","Requires tools to be stateless or thread-safe; shared state across tool calls is not managed","ReAct integration adds complexity; framework must handle both planned and reactive task generation","Iterative reasoning increases latency compared to single-pass planning; no automatic optimization of iteration count","No clear separation between planned and reactive tasks; can lead to unpredictable execution patterns","Incomplete plans may cause replanning if early tasks reveal missing dependencies or invalid assumptions","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.4752439668249174,"quality":0.22,"ecosystem":0.7000000000000001,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.27,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.28,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"inactive","updated_at":"2026-05-06T15:12:23.810Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T13:57:11.504Z","last_commit":"2024-07-10T04:39:34Z"},"community":{"stars":1847,"forks":131,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=squeezeailab--llmcompiler","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=squeezeailab--llmcompiler"}},"signature":"qttR3kJ+3wM1wsXx8hVvq681fcJbeOhXIQ0hUctkBMDeQFVwv5Um9oSIl0sKXi1L7IOftBGrMQ89YTBIpUyxDQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T01:08:49.533Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/squeezeailab--llmcompiler","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/squeezeailab--llmcompiler","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=squeezeailab--llmcompiler","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"}}