Outsider Stage 0.5
Replay and verify a real, sealed Outsider Stage 0.5 intervention chain.
Translation pending
Draft security questionnaire and RFP answers from your documentation, with sources.
SecurityTypeScript · CSSGitHub @theoucsOnlineOwner unconfirmed
Have you tried it? One tap is enough. No sign-in needed.
No updates detected yet. GitHub releases will appear here.
Owners of public repositories under a personal GitHub account can sign in to verify ownership and manage the introduction themselves. No administrator approval is needed.
Sign in, generate a verification file, and commit it to this repository’s default branch within 30 minutes. Files on other branches or forks do not count. Then check the file below to manage the project without administrator approval. Keep the file to retain your access.
If needed, you will go to sign-in. After signing in, return here and press your chosen verification button again.
Run /nomorevibe verify in your project folder to verify ownership and manage the introduction yourself.
Verify in one minuteAsk about other verification options
Security questionnaire assistant: sourced answers, abstention, LLM-as-judge evaluation (Mistral x Gemini)
Translation pending
Taken from the repository README
Loading the full README.
Read the full README ↗Drafts answers to security questionnaires and RFPs from a company's documentation — with a source for every answer, and a clear "not in documentation" when there isn't one.
Live: trustdesk.tblabs.dev · Case study: tblabs.dev/work/trustdesk
The documentation belongs to Vantrel, a fictional SaaS vendor invented for this project: 12 documents written with the gaps, near-misses and one contradiction that real documentation always has.
.xlsx, .csv, .txt) or paste questions. The question column is detected automatically.Four possible outcomes: Answered (including a documented "no") · Partial · Not in documentation · Conflicting sources.
eval/questions.jsonl — 50 questions with reference answers and expected sources: direct, paraphrased, multi-document, French, documented "no", 12 with no answer in the docs, traps, one contradiction.runs/ — every evaluation run: config, per-question results, summary.Main findings: embeddings alone beat hybrid search on this corpus (99% vs 95% recall@5); grader strictness weighs ~8 points vs ~1 point between models; prompt v2 is in production because it is the only version with zero invented answers for both models, even though v3 scores higher with the grader.
Next.js 16 · TypeScript · Tailwind · Vercel (Paris region) · Mistral & Gemini APIs (free tiers) · no framework, no vector database (65 sections fit in memory).
npm install
cp .env.example .env.local # MISTRAL_API_KEY, GEMINI_API_KEY
npm run dev # app on http://localhost:3000
npm run eval:retrieval -- --mode embedding # retrieval only, no LLM call
npm run ask -- "Do you support SCIM?" --generator gemini
npm run eval -- --generator mistral --judge gemini --prompt v2
npm run compare -- --matrix v1
npm run calibrate # grade answers yourself, measure judge-human agreement
docs/COMMENT_CA_MARCHE.md (in French) explains every design choice, every measurement and the reasoning behind each decision.