FACET vs Existing Approaches
This article positions FACET, a deterministic contract layer, against common industry approaches for structured outputs, tool-calling, and agent orchestration.
Why it matters
FACET aims to address the reliability and consistency issues in existing approaches for structured outputs, tool-calling, and agent orchestration.
Key Points
- 1FACET enforces validity before generation through compilation, typing, canonicalization, deterministic layout, and replayable artifacts
- 2FACET competes with fragile parts like prompt glue, schema drift, provider quirks, ad hoc truncation, and non-replayable runs
- 3FACET turns schemas into typed contracts enforced by the Facet Type System, phase ordering, Canonical JSON, and adapter boundary
- 4FACET treats provider constraints as first-class compile-time inputs, capturing them during compilation and using passive translators (adapters)
Details
FACET is a standard (spec + conformance levels), a compiler (AST → type-check → R-DAG → Token Box → Canonical JSON), a contract boundary (tool schema + deterministic context + replay), and a provider-decoupling layer (Canonical JSON as IR; adapters as views). It competes with the fragile parts of existing approaches, such as prompt glue, schema drift, provider quirks, ad hoc truncation, and non-replayable runs. FACET turns schemas into typed contracts enforced by the Facet Type System, phase ordering, Canonical JSON, and adapter boundary, ensuring a run either produces a valid canonical state or fails before polluting downstream execution. FACET also treats provider constraints as first-class compile-time inputs, capturing them during compilation and using passive translators (adapters) to interface with provider SDKs.
No comments yet
Be the first to comment