Decision framework for choosing between regex and LLM when parsing structured text — start with regex, add LLM only for low-confidence edge cases.
npx skills add https://github.com/loulanyue/awesome-claude-notes --skill regex-vs-llm-structured-text
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.
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
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
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
Flag items that may need LLM review:
@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]
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
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
From a production quiz parsing pipeline (410 items):
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Regex success rate | 98.0% |
| Low confidence items | 8 (2.0%) |
| LLM calls needed | ~5 |
| Cost savings vs all-LLM | ~95% |
| Test coverage | 93% |
Create and train AI learning plugins with AgentDB's 9 reinforcement learning algorithms. Includes Decision Transformer, Q-Learning, SARSA, Actor-Critic, and more. Use when building self-learning agents, implementing RL, or optimizing agent behavior through experience.
Create and train AI learning plugins with AgentDB's 9 reinforcement learning algorithms. Includes Decision Transformer, Q-Learning, SARSA, Actor-Critic, and more. Use when building self-learning agents, implementing RL, or optimizing agent behavior through experience.
Design LLM applications using LangChain 1.x and LangGraph for agents, memory, and tool integration. Use when building LangChain applications, implementing AI agents, or creating complex LLM workflows.
Provide read-only NemoClaw maintainer policy. Use for questions about Issue Type, labels, Project fields, release labels, triage, duplicates, blocked items, and maintainer decisions. Trigger keywords - maintainer policy, workflow policy, project workflow, issue type, labels, label taxonomy, needs labels, project status, blocked issue, duplicate issue, daily release label, release train, triage policy.
Run stepped HTTP load tests with ab/wrk, ramping concurrency levels to collect p50/p90/p99 latency, detect performance inflection points, and recommend optimal concurrency. Triggered by requests like 'load test this URL', 'benchmark my API', 'find the max concurrency', or mentions of p99 latency, throughput saturation, or capacity planning.
Record episodes for an agentic env via teleoperation (keyboard, SO-ARM leader, or VR) into HDF5. Use when the user wants to teleop or record human demos.
| Investigate outliers, rare events, spikes, and suspicious records in datasets. Use as an explicit anomaly-analysis helper when you want concrete anomaly-detection workflow guidance, not generic data validation or end-to-end ML ownership.
Run any question, idea, or decision through a council of 5 AI advisors who independently analyze it, peer-review each other anonymously, and synthesize a final verdict. Based on Karpathy's LLM Council methodology. MANDATORY TRIGGERS: 'council this', 'run the council', 'war room this', 'pressure-test this', 'stress-test this', 'debate this'. STRONG TRIGGERS (use when combined with a real decision or tradeoff): 'should I X or Y', 'which option', 'what would you do', 'is this the right move', 'validate this', 'get multiple perspectives', 'I can't decide', 'I'm torn between'. Do NOT trigger on simple yes/no questions, factual lookups, or casual 'should I' without a meaningful tradeoff (e.g. 'should I use markdown' is not a council question). DO trigger when the user presents a genuine decision with stakes, multiple options, and context that suggests they want it pressure-tested from multiple angles.
Take loulanyue/regex-vs-llm-structured-text from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.