garak vs vitest-llm-reporter
Side-by-side comparison to help you choose.
| Feature | garak | vitest-llm-reporter |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Repository | Repository |
| UnfragileRank | 22/100 | 30/100 |
| Adoption | 0 | 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 1 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 8 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Garak scans LLMs for vulnerabilities by routing prompts through a modular harness system that abstracts different model providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, vLLM, etc.) behind a unified interface. Each harness handles authentication, rate limiting, and response parsing for its target model, allowing the same vulnerability test suite to run against any LLM without code changes. The architecture uses a plugin-based loader pattern to dynamically instantiate harnesses at runtime based on configuration.
Unique: Uses a harness abstraction layer that decouples vulnerability tests from model provider implementations, enabling the same test suite to run against OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source models, and custom endpoints without modification. Most competitors either target specific providers or require test rewrites per model.
vs alternatives: Garak's harness-based design allows security teams to test heterogeneous LLM deployments with a single tool, whereas alternatives like Promptfoo focus on prompt evaluation and Rebuff targets specific attack patterns.
Garak organizes vulnerability tests as 'probes' — modular test units that generate adversarial prompts, send them to a target LLM via a harness, and evaluate responses against detection criteria. Probes are organized into taxonomies (e.g., 'jailbreak', 'prompt-injection', 'hallucination') and can be composed into test suites. Each probe implements a generate() method that produces test prompts (often using templates or programmatic construction) and a detect() method that classifies model responses as vulnerable or safe based on heuristics, keyword matching, or semantic similarity.
Unique: Implements a two-stage probe architecture (generate + detect) that separates test prompt creation from response evaluation, allowing probes to be reused across different detection strategies and enabling custom detection logic without modifying prompt generation. This is more flexible than monolithic test frameworks that couple prompt and evaluation logic.
vs alternatives: Garak's probe taxonomy provides broader coverage of LLM vulnerabilities (jailbreaks, prompt injection, hallucination, bias) compared to narrower tools like Rebuff (jailbreak-focused) or Promptfoo (prompt optimization-focused).
Garak exposes both a command-line interface (CLI) and a Python API for executing vulnerability scans. The CLI uses argparse to parse configuration and invoke the orchestrator, making garak accessible to non-programmers. The Python API provides classes and functions for programmatic test execution, enabling integration into Python-based workflows, notebooks, and CI/CD pipelines. Both interfaces share the same underlying orchestrator, ensuring consistent behavior. The architecture uses a facade pattern to abstract CLI and API differences, allowing users to choose the interface that best fits their workflow.
Unique: Provides both CLI and Python API interfaces backed by the same orchestrator, allowing users to choose the interface that best fits their workflow (command-line for one-off scans, Python API for automation). The facade pattern ensures consistent behavior across interfaces.
vs alternatives: Garak's dual interface (CLI + API) is more flexible than CLI-only tools (like some security scanners) or API-only tools (like some Python libraries), enabling broader adoption across different user types and workflows.
Garak provides a configuration-driven orchestration layer that chains together harnesses, probes, and detectors into executable test suites. Users define test runs in YAML/JSON config files specifying which models to test, which probes to run, and how to aggregate results. The orchestrator handles sequential or parallel probe execution (depending on harness concurrency support), collects results, and generates structured reports (JSON, CSV, HTML) with vulnerability metrics, model comparisons, and risk summaries. The architecture uses a run manager pattern to track test state and enable resumable/incremental scanning.
Unique: Uses a declarative YAML/JSON configuration model to define test suites, allowing non-programmers to compose complex multi-model security tests without writing code. The run manager pattern enables resumable scans and incremental result collection, reducing cost and time for large-scale audits.
vs alternatives: Garak's configuration-driven orchestration is more flexible than CLI-only tools and provides better auditability than programmatic test frameworks, making it suitable for compliance-heavy environments.
Garak's probes generate adversarial prompts using multiple strategies: template-based (filling placeholders in predefined jailbreak/injection patterns), programmatic (constructing prompts via Python logic to vary parameters), and potentially LLM-based (using auxiliary models to generate novel attack prompts). Probes can combine strategies — e.g., a jailbreak probe might use templates for known attacks and programmatic generation for variations. The generation layer abstracts prompt construction, allowing probes to focus on detection logic and enabling reuse of generation strategies across multiple probes.
Unique: Separates prompt generation from detection, allowing probes to use multiple generation strategies (templates, programmatic, LLM-based) and enabling reuse of generation logic across different detection criteria. This modularity makes it easier to add new attack patterns without duplicating generation code.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-strategy generation approach is more comprehensive than single-strategy tools; it supports both curated jailbreak templates and programmatic variation, whereas competitors often use only one approach.
Garak's detection layer evaluates LLM responses against multiple criteria to classify them as vulnerable or safe. Detection strategies include keyword/regex matching (e.g., detecting refusal phrases or harmful content keywords), semantic similarity (comparing responses to known vulnerable outputs using embeddings), classifier-based detection (using auxiliary ML models to score response safety), and custom heuristics. Probes compose these strategies — e.g., a jailbreak probe might use keyword matching for obvious bypasses and semantic similarity for subtle ones. The detection layer is decoupled from prompt generation, allowing the same response to be evaluated by multiple detectors.
Unique: Implements a composable detection architecture where multiple detection strategies (keyword, semantic, classifier) can be combined per probe, allowing fine-grained control over false positive/negative tradeoffs. Most competitors use single detection strategies, making them less flexible for diverse vulnerability types.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-strategy detection is more robust than keyword-only tools (like simple regex scanners) and more flexible than single-model approaches (like classifier-only tools), enabling better accuracy across diverse attack types.
Garak organizes vulnerabilities into a hierarchical taxonomy (e.g., 'jailbreak', 'prompt-injection', 'hallucination', 'bias', 'privacy') with subtypes and specific probes for each category. The taxonomy is exposed as a discoverable API — users can list available probes, filter by vulnerability type, and understand the coverage of each category. The taxonomy structure enables organized reporting (grouping results by vulnerability class) and helps users understand which attack vectors are tested. The architecture uses a registry pattern to dynamically load probes and organize them by taxonomy.
Unique: Provides a discoverable, hierarchical taxonomy of LLM vulnerabilities with explicit probe mappings, allowing users to understand test coverage and plan audits systematically. Most competitors lack explicit taxonomy organization, making it harder to assess what vulnerabilities are tested.
vs alternatives: Garak's taxonomy-based organization makes it easier for non-security experts to understand vulnerability scope and plan comprehensive audits, whereas competitors often require deep knowledge of attack types.
Garak supports scanning multiple LLMs in a single test run, aggregating results across models to enable comparative analysis. The orchestrator manages harness instances for each model, routes probes to all harnesses, and collects results in a unified format. Aggregation includes per-model vulnerability counts, cross-model comparisons (e.g., 'Model A is vulnerable to X, Model B is not'), and overall risk rankings. The architecture uses a result collector pattern to normalize outputs from different harnesses and enable flexible aggregation strategies.
Unique: Normalizes results across heterogeneous LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, open-source, custom) into a unified format, enabling direct comparative analysis without manual result reconciliation. The result collector pattern abstracts provider-specific output formats, making it easy to add new models.
vs alternatives: Garak's multi-model aggregation is more comprehensive than single-model tools and more flexible than provider-specific benchmarks, enabling fair comparisons across diverse LLM ecosystems.
+3 more capabilities
Transforms Vitest's native test execution output into a machine-readable JSON or text format optimized for LLM parsing, eliminating verbose formatting and ANSI color codes that confuse language models. The reporter intercepts Vitest's test lifecycle hooks (onTestEnd, onFinish) and serializes results with consistent field ordering, normalized error messages, and hierarchical test suite structure to enable reliable downstream LLM analysis without preprocessing.
Unique: Purpose-built reporter that strips formatting noise and normalizes test output specifically for LLM token efficiency and parsing reliability, rather than human readability — uses compact field names, removes color codes, and orders fields predictably for consistent LLM tokenization
vs alternatives: Unlike default Vitest reporters (verbose, ANSI-formatted) or generic JSON reporters, this reporter optimizes output structure and verbosity specifically for LLM consumption, reducing context window usage and improving parse accuracy in AI agents
Organizes test results into a nested tree structure that mirrors the test file hierarchy and describe-block nesting, enabling LLMs to understand test organization and scope relationships. The reporter builds this hierarchy by tracking describe-block entry/exit events and associating individual test results with their parent suite context, preserving semantic relationships that flat test lists would lose.
Unique: Preserves and exposes Vitest's describe-block hierarchy in output structure rather than flattening results, allowing LLMs to reason about test scope, shared setup, and feature-level organization without post-processing
vs alternatives: Standard test reporters either flatten results (losing hierarchy) or format hierarchy for human reading (verbose); this reporter exposes hierarchy as queryable JSON structure optimized for LLM traversal and scope-aware analysis
vitest-llm-reporter scores higher at 30/100 vs garak at 22/100. garak leads on adoption and quality, while vitest-llm-reporter is stronger on ecosystem.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Parses and normalizes test failure stack traces into a structured format that removes framework noise, extracts file paths and line numbers, and presents error messages in a form LLMs can reliably parse. The reporter processes raw error objects from Vitest, strips internal framework frames, identifies the first user-code frame, and formats the stack in a consistent structure with separated message, file, line, and code context fields.
Unique: Specifically targets Vitest's error format and strips framework-internal frames to expose user-code errors, rather than generic stack trace parsing that would preserve irrelevant framework context
vs alternatives: Unlike raw Vitest error output (verbose, framework-heavy) or generic JSON reporters (unstructured errors), this reporter extracts and normalizes error data into a format LLMs can reliably parse for automated diagnosis
Captures and aggregates test execution timing data (per-test duration, suite duration, total runtime) and formats it for LLM analysis of performance patterns. The reporter hooks into Vitest's timing events, calculates duration deltas, and includes timing data in the output structure, enabling LLMs to identify slow tests, performance regressions, or timing-related flakiness.
Unique: Integrates timing data directly into LLM-optimized output structure rather than as a separate metrics report, enabling LLMs to correlate test failures with performance characteristics in a single analysis pass
vs alternatives: Standard reporters show timing for human review; this reporter structures timing data for LLM consumption, enabling automated performance analysis and optimization suggestions
Provides configuration options to customize the reporter's output format (JSON, text, custom), verbosity level (minimal, standard, verbose), and field inclusion, allowing users to optimize output for specific LLM contexts or token budgets. The reporter uses a configuration object to control which fields are included, how deeply nested structures are serialized, and whether to include optional metadata like file paths or error context.
Unique: Exposes granular configuration for LLM-specific output optimization (token count, format, verbosity) rather than fixed output format, enabling users to tune reporter behavior for different LLM contexts
vs alternatives: Unlike fixed-format reporters, this reporter allows customization of output structure and verbosity, enabling optimization for specific LLM models or token budgets without forking the reporter
Categorizes test results into discrete status classes (passed, failed, skipped, todo) and enables filtering or highlighting of specific status categories in output. The reporter maps Vitest's test state to standardized status values and optionally filters output to include only relevant statuses, reducing noise for LLM analysis of specific failure types.
Unique: Provides status-based filtering at the reporter level rather than requiring post-processing, enabling LLMs to receive pre-filtered results focused on specific failure types
vs alternatives: Standard reporters show all test results; this reporter enables filtering by status to reduce noise and focus LLM analysis on relevant failures without post-processing
Extracts and normalizes file paths and source locations for each test, enabling LLMs to reference exact test file locations and line numbers. The reporter captures file paths from Vitest's test metadata, normalizes paths (absolute to relative), and includes line number information for each test, allowing LLMs to generate file-specific fix suggestions or navigate to test definitions.
Unique: Normalizes and exposes file paths and line numbers in a structured format optimized for LLM reference and code generation, rather than as human-readable file references
vs alternatives: Unlike reporters that include file paths as text, this reporter structures location data for LLM consumption, enabling precise code generation and automated remediation
Parses and extracts assertion messages from failed tests, normalizing them into a structured format that LLMs can reliably interpret. The reporter processes assertion error messages, separates expected vs actual values, and formats them consistently to enable LLMs to understand assertion failures without parsing verbose assertion library output.
Unique: Specifically parses Vitest assertion messages to extract expected/actual values and normalize them for LLM consumption, rather than passing raw assertion output
vs alternatives: Unlike raw error messages (verbose, library-specific) or generic error parsing (loses assertion semantics), this reporter extracts assertion-specific data for LLM-driven fix generation