affaan-m/ecc

regex-vs-llm-structured-text

Decision framework for parsing structured text (quizzes, forms, invoices, receipts, tables) with a hybrid regex-first pipeline — regex extraction handles 95%+ cheaply, a confidence scorer flags low-confidence items, and an LLM validator fixes only the edge…

ソースを見る

実際の例を見る

使用例

Structured text: parse a fixed quiz format with regex

Complete original immutable ParsedItem class and parser for numbered questions, A–D choices and an Answer marker. The pattern is format-specific and multiline; it is not a general document parser. No dataset was processed and the source accuracy/cost claims were not independently verified.

入力例

import re
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ParsedItem:
    id: str
    text: str
    choices: tuple[str, ...]
    answer: str
    confidence: float = 1.0

def parse_structured_text(content: str) -> list[ParsedItem]:
    """Parse structured text using regex patterns."""
    pattern = re.compile(
        r"(?P<id>\d+)\.\s*(?P<text>.+?)\n"
        r"(?P<choices>(?:[A-D]\..+?\n)+)"
        r"Answer:\s*(?P<answer>[A-D])",
        re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL,
    )
    items = []
    for match in pattern.finditer(content):
        choices = tuple(
            c.strip() for c in re.findall(r"[A-D]\.\s*(.+)", match.group("choices"))
        )
        items.append(ParsedItem(
            id=match.group("id"),
            text=match.group("text").strip(),
            choices=choices,
            answer=match.group("answer"),
        ))
    return items
ライセンス

Complete original source code blocks or author-defined blank templates are preserved, including imports, comments, example names, placeholders and omitted project definitions. Multiple blocks are assembled with editorial headings/fences only. Titles and summaries state dependencies and scope. These are author usage patterns or templates, not site-executed code, observed test results, measured performance or filled private-project reports. No upstream Skill instructions, installers, model/API calls, databases, browsers, accounts, mail or source tests were executed.

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 Affaan Mustafa

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
使用例

Structured text: flag incomplete extractions for review

Complete original ConfidenceFlag, scoring and low-confidence selection block. Reuse ParsedItem/dataclass from the preceding parser example. Scores are author-defined heuristics, not calibrated probabilities; no LLM, correction parser or validation result is included.

入力例

@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ConfidenceFlag:
    item_id: str
    score: float
    reasons: tuple[str, ...]

def score_confidence(item: ParsedItem) -> ConfidenceFlag:
    """Score extraction confidence and flag issues."""
    reasons = []
    score = 1.0

    if len(item.choices) < 3:
        reasons.append("few_choices")
        score -= 0.3

    if not item.answer:
        reasons.append("missing_answer")
        score -= 0.5

    if len(item.text) < 10:
        reasons.append("short_text")
        score -= 0.2

    return ConfidenceFlag(
        item_id=item.id,
        score=max(0.0, score),
        reasons=tuple(reasons),
    )

def identify_low_confidence(
    items: list[ParsedItem],
    threshold: float = 0.95,
) -> list[ConfidenceFlag]:
    """Return items below confidence threshold."""
    flags = [score_confidence(item) for item in items]
    return [f for f in flags if f.score < threshold]
ライセンス

Complete original source code blocks or author-defined blank templates are preserved, including imports, comments, example names, placeholders and omitted project definitions. Multiple blocks are assembled with editorial headings/fences only. Titles and summaries state dependencies and scope. These are author usage patterns or templates, not site-executed code, observed test results, measured performance or filled private-project reports. No upstream Skill instructions, installers, model/API calls, databases, browsers, accounts, mail or source tests were executed.

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2026 Affaan Mustafa

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

使い方

  1. インストールコマンドをコピーし、自分の環境へ導入する前にソースを確認します。
  2. 必要なツール、認証情報、対応環境を原文で確認します。
  3. 入力と成果物を指定し、出力を資料と照合します。
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ecc --skill regex-vs-llm-structured-text

開始前の確認

  • 導入にはモデル契約、API枠、ファイルへのアクセス許可は含まれません。
  • スター数や導入数は活動の指標であり、独立した品質・安全性試験ではありません。
リポジトリの原文

見出し、例、コード、表、リンク、参照画像を含む原文を表示しています。

Regex vs LLM for Structured Text Parsing

A practical decision framework for parsing structured text (quizzes, forms, invoices, documents). The key insight: regex handles 95-98% of cases cheaply and deterministically. Reserve expensive LLM calls for the remaining edge cases.

When to Activate

  • Parsing structured text with repeating patterns (questions, forms, tables)
  • Deciding between regex and LLM for text extraction
  • Building hybrid pipelines that combine both approaches
  • Optimizing cost/accuracy tradeoffs in text processing

Decision Framework

Is the text format consistent and repeating?
├── Yes (>90% follows a pattern) → Start with Regex
│   ├── Regex handles 95%+ → Done, no LLM needed
│   └── Regex handles <95% → Add LLM for edge cases only
└── No (free-form, highly variable) → Use LLM directly

Architecture Pattern

Source Text
    │
    ▼
[Regex Parser] ─── Extracts structure (95-98% accuracy)
    │
    ▼
[Text Cleaner] ─── Removes noise (markers, page numbers, artifacts)
    │
    ▼
[Confidence Scorer] ─── Flags low-confidence extractions
    │
    ├── High confidence (≥0.95) → Direct output
    │
    └── Low confidence (<0.95) → [LLM Validator] → Output

Implementation

1. Regex Parser (Handles the Majority)

python
import re
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ParsedItem:
    id: str
    text: str
    choices: tuple[str, ...]
    answer: str
    confidence: float = 1.0

def parse_structured_text(content: str) -> list[ParsedItem]:
    """Parse structured text using regex patterns."""
    pattern = re.compile(
        r"(?P<id>\d+)\.\s*(?P<text>.+?)\n"
        r"(?P<choices>(?:[A-D]\..+?\n)+)"
        r"Answer:\s*(?P<answer>[A-D])",
        re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL,
    )
    items = []
    for match in pattern.finditer(content):
        choices = tuple(
            c.strip() for c in re.findall(r"[A-D]\.\s*(.+)", match.group("choices"))
        )
        items.append(ParsedItem(
            id=match.group("id"),
            text=match.group("text").strip(),
            choices=choices,
            answer=match.group("answer"),
        ))
    return items

2. Confidence Scoring

Flag items that may need LLM review:

python
@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ConfidenceFlag:
    item_id: str
    score: float
    reasons: tuple[str, ...]

def score_confidence(item: ParsedItem) -> ConfidenceFlag:
    """Score extraction confidence and flag issues."""
    reasons = []
    score = 1.0

    if len(item.choices) < 3:
        reasons.append("few_choices")
        score -= 0.3

    if not item.answer:
        reasons.append("missing_answer")
        score -= 0.5

    if len(item.text) < 10:
        reasons.append("short_text")
        score -= 0.2

    return ConfidenceFlag(
        item_id=item.id,
        score=max(0.0, score),
        reasons=tuple(reasons),
    )

def identify_low_confidence(
    items: list[ParsedItem],
    threshold: float = 0.95,
) -> list[ConfidenceFlag]:
    """Return items below confidence threshold."""
    flags = [score_confidence(item) for item in items]
    return [f for f in flags if f.score < threshold]

3. LLM Validator (Edge Cases Only)

python
def validate_with_llm(
    item: ParsedItem,
    original_text: str,
    client,
) -> ParsedItem:
    """Use LLM to fix low-confidence extractions."""
    response = client.messages.create(
        model="claude-haiku-4-5-20251001",  # Cheapest model for validation
        max_tokens=500,
        messages=[{
            "role": "user",
            "content": (
                f"Extract the question, choices, and answer from this text.\n\n"
                f"Text: {original_text}\n\n"
                f"Current extraction: {item}\n\n"
                f"Return corrected JSON if needed, or 'CORRECT' if accurate."
            ),
        }],
    )
    # Parse LLM response and return corrected item...
    return corrected_item

4. Hybrid Pipeline

python
def process_document(
    content: str,
    *,
    llm_client=None,
    confidence_threshold: float = 0.95,
) -> list[ParsedItem]:
    """Full pipeline: regex -> confidence check -> LLM for edge cases."""
    # Step 1: Regex extraction (handles 95-98%)
    items = parse_structured_text(content)

    # Step 2: Confidence scoring
    low_confidence = identify_low_confidence(items, confidence_threshold)

    if not low_confidence or llm_client is None:
        return items

    # Step 3: LLM validation (only for flagged items)
    low_conf_ids = {f.item_id for f in low_confidence}
    result = []
    for item in items:
        if item.id in low_conf_ids:
            result.append(validate_with_llm(item, content, llm_client))
        else:
            result.append(item)

    return result

Real-World Metrics

From a production quiz parsing pipeline (410 items):

MetricValue
Regex success rate98.0%
Low confidence items8 (2.0%)
LLM calls needed~5
Cost savings vs all-LLM~95%
Test coverage93%

Best Practices

  • Start with regex — even imperfect regex gives you a baseline to improve
  • Use confidence scoring to programmatically identify what needs LLM help
  • Use the cheapest LLM for validation (Haiku-class models are sufficient)
  • Never mutate parsed items — return new instances from cleaning/validation steps
  • TDD works well for parsers — write tests for known patterns first, then edge cases
  • Log metrics (regex success rate, LLM call count) to track pipeline health

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Sending all text to an LLM when regex handles 95%+ of cases (expensive and slow)
  • Using regex for free-form, highly variable text (LLM is better here)
  • Skipping confidence scoring and hoping regex "just works"
  • Mutating parsed objects during cleaning/validation steps
  • Not testing edge cases (malformed input, missing fields, encoding issues)

When to Use

  • Quiz/exam question parsing
  • Form data extraction
  • Invoice/receipt processing
  • Document structure parsing (headers, sections, tables)
  • Any structured text with repeating patterns where cost matters

タスクに関連する項目

同じリポジトリから

関連する Skills

すべての Skills
affaan-m
コミュニティ

agent-self-evaluation

Use after completing any non-trivial task. The agent self-rates its output on 5 axes — accuracy, completeness, clarity, actionability, conciseness — with concrete evidence per criterion. Produces a structured 1-5 scorecard with specific improvement suggestions.

導入数
3
GitHub Stars
28.7万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

configure-ecc

Run the conversational ECC setup wizard inside the current harness: inventory the install, collect scope (user/project/local) and hook mode (off/minimal/standard/strict) in Claude Code, use Codex's native plugin lifecycle, or install the project surface under ./.kimi-code, then preview, apply, and verify. Use when installing, updating, reconfiguring, or repairing an ECC installation, changing hook profiles, or moving ECC between install scopes.

導入数
3
GitHub Stars
28.7万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

contract-first

Coordinate frontend/backend or service-to-service work through one authoritative machine-checkable contract (OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, Protocol Buffers, or JSON Schema), with generated consumer types and contract-verified integration. Use when parallel consumer and provider work must evolve an API or event schema without field drift, mock/production shape mismatch, or one side silently redefining the interface.

導入数
3
GitHub Stars
28.7万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

django-patterns

Django architecture patterns, REST API design with DRF, ORM best practices, caching, signals, middleware, and production-grade Django apps. Use when building or reviewing Django apps, DRF APIs, ORM queries, or caching.

導入数
3
GitHub Stars
28.7万
更新日
10月20日