AI·rete·RAG – a Rete rule engine decides, RAG explains why
Hi HN, I built ai·rete·rag because I kept seeing teams put an LLM in charge of decisions that need to be auditable (lending, fraud, clinical triage), then bolt on "guardrails" after the fact.It runs the two in series instead:1. A pure-Python Rete engine evaluates YAML rules against your facts. The verdict comes only from here. Same facts, same verdict, every time, with salience-based conflict resolution. 2. RAG retrieves passages from your own policy documents, and an LLM writes a plain-English explanation of the decision that was already made, citing those passages. It can't change the verdict.A few things that went further than I expected: - Rules are a graph, not flat lists: nested all/any/not, and rules can assert facts that other rules consume (forward chaining). The decision trace shows the causal chain. - Audit mode records every rule evaluated, including the ones that didn't fire, condition by condition, with a snapshot of the rule set for replay. - Rules can steer retrieval (a fired rule narrows which documents get searched), and retrieved text can be turned into facts for the engine. - Non-technical authors can build rules in a visual editor, or paste a policy document and get LLM-drafted rules with citations. Drafts are never saved without review. YAML is still there for engineers.The landing page has a live demo with no signup (8 demo domains: loan, fraud, clinical, insurance, legal, ops, e-commerce, blockchain). There's also an MCP server, so Claude and other agents can call /decide as a tool: `uvx ai-rete-rag-mcp`.To be upfront: it's a hosted product with a free tier. The MCP client is open source (MIT, github.com/zaharajabeen13-create/ai-rete-rag-mcp); the engine and platform are not open source right now.I'd especially like to hear from anyone who has had to explain an automated decision to a regulator or an auditor: what did they actually ask for?
FL score
out of 100
Verdict
high confidence
Competition
No competitor data yet
Trend
No signal yet
An auditable AI decision engine that separates rule-based verdicts from LLM-generated explanations to ensure consistent, explainable outcomes for regulated industries.
The pain
The gap
Build angle
Strengths
- Clear problem in regulated, high-stakes decision domains
- Innovative two-step architecture separating decision and explanation
- Strong audit and replay capabilities for compliance
- Visual rule authoring lowers barrier for non-technical users
Risks
- Niche market with potentially long sales cycles and specialized customers
- Dependence on quality and completeness of policy documents for explanations
- Competition from established rule engines and emerging explainable AI tools
- Balancing complexity of rule authoring with usability for non-technical users
Fly Labs Method
Is the pain real, is there a gap, is it the right time, can one person build it.
- Problem clarity
- 90
- Solution gap
- 85
- Willingness to pay
- 75
- Buildability
- 80
The product addresses a clear, real pain in regulated industries needing auditable automated decisions, with a novel approach that fills a gap, moderate willingness to pay, and feasible build scope for a solo founder.
Value Equation
Dream outcome and how likely it feels, against the time and effort it costs.
The idea targets a valuable market with a differentiated solution that reduces risk and improves compliance, but monetization and scaling may require more validation.
One-Person Business
Curiosity pull, identity fit, and a path from free value to paid for a solo creator.
The solution is technically sound and addresses a niche with strong demand for explainability and auditability, though adoption depends on integration ease and trust.
Viral Frameworks
Hook strength, shareability, and how cheaply it can be tested.
The product fits a specific compliance-driven need with a defensible technical approach, but market size and customer acquisition complexity limit upside.
Builder Lens
Evidence the problem exists, timing, defensibility, and a model that fits on a napkin.
The idea solves a real problem in regulated decision-making with a unique two-step engine, but the market is specialized and may require deep domain sales cycles.
Five lenses, one composite. How scoring works
The angle
No market research recorded for this idea yet.
Semble – Code search for agents that uses 98% fewer tokens than grep
Hey HN! We (Stephan and Thomas) recently open-sourced Semble. We kept running into the same problem while using Claude Code on large codebases: when the agent can't find something directly, it falls back to grep, reading full files or launching subagents. This uses a lot of tokens, and often still misses the relevant code. There are existing tools for this, but they were either too slow to index on demand, needed API keys, or had poor retrieval quality.Semble is our solution for this. It combines static Model2Vec embeddings (using our latest static model: potion-code-16M) with BM25, fused via RRF and reranked with code-aware signals. Everything runs on CPU since there's no transformers involved. On our benchmark of ~1250 query/document pairs across 63 repos and 19 languages, it uses 98% fewer tokens than grep+read and reaches 99% of the retrieval quality of a 137M-parameter code-trained transformer, while being ~200x faster.Main features:- Token-efficient: 98% fewer tokens than grep+read- Fast: ~250ms to index a typical repo on our benchmark, ~1.5ms per query on CPU (very large repos may take longer)- Accurate: 0.854 NDCG@10, 99% of the best transformer setup we tested- MCP server: drop-in for Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, OpenCode- Zero config: no API keys, no GPU, no external servicesInstall in Claude Code with: claude mcp add semble -s user -- uvx --from "semble[mcp]" sembleOr check our README for other installation instructions, benchmarks, and methodology:Semble: https://github.com/MinishLab/sembleBenchmarks: https://github.com/MinishLab/semble/tree/main/benchmarksModel: https://huggingface.co/minishlab/potion-code-16MLet us know if you have any feedback or questions!
AI
Postgres extension for BM25 relevance-ranked full-text search
Last summer we faced a conundrum at my company, Tiger Data, a Postgres cloud vendor whose main business is in timeseries data. We were trying to grow our business towards emerging AI-centric workloads and wanted to provide a state-of-the-art hybrid search stack in Postgres. We'd already built pgvectorscale in house with the goal of scaling semantic search beyond pgvector's main memory limitations. We just needed a scalable ranked keyword search solution too.The problem: core Postgres doesn't provide this; the leading Postgres BM25 extension, ParadeDB, is guarded behind AGPL; developing our own extension appeared daunting. We'd need a small team of sharp engineers and 6-12 months, I figured. And we'd probably still fall short of the performance of a mature system like Parade/Tantivy.Or would we? I'd be experimenting long enough with AI-boosted development at that point to realize that with the latest tools (Claude Code + Opus) and an experienced hand (I've been working in database systems internals for 25 years now), the old time estimates pretty much go out the window.I told our CTO I thought I could solo the project in one quarter. This raised some eyebrows.It did take a little more time than that (two quarters), and we got some real help from the community (amazing!) after open-sourcing the pre-release. But I'm thrilled/exhausted today to share that pg_textsearch v1.0 is freely available via open source (Postgres license), on Tiger Data cloud, and hopefully soon, a hyperscalar near you:https://github.com/timescale/pg_textsearchIn the blog post accompanying the release, I overview the architecture and present benchmark results using MS-MARCO. To my surprise, we were not only able to meet Parade/Tantivy's query performance, but exceed it substantially, measuring a 4.7x advantage on query throughput at scale:https://www.tigerdata.com/blog/pg-textsearch-bm25-fu
AI
GlycemicGPT – Open-source AI-powered diabetes management
I'm a Type 1 diabetic and software engineer. Last year I went months between endocrinologists with no clinician reviewing my data. I'm an engineer, so I built the tool I needed — and now I'm open sourcing it. GlycemicGPT is a self-hosted platform that connects continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, and existing Nightscout instances to an AI analysis layer running on your own infrastructure. Data sources:Dexcom G7 (cloud API) Tandem t:slim X2 and Mobi pumps (direct BLE) Nightscout (point it at your existing instance and you're running in minutes)What the AI layer does:Daily briefs summarizing overnight and 24-hour patterns Meal response analysis Conversational chat with RAG-backed clinical knowledge Predictive alerting with configurable thresholds and caregiver escalationImportant: this is monitoring and analysis only. GlycemicGPT does not deliver insulin, does not control your pump, and is not a closed-loop system. It reads your data and gives you insight on top of it. Your clinical decisions stay between you and your care team. Architecture:Self-hosted via Docker or K8S — the GlycemicGPT stack runs entirely on your hardware BYOAI — bring your own AI provider. Use Ollama for fully local operation (no data leaves your hardware), or point it at Claude, OpenAI, or any OpenAI-compatible endpoint if you prefer a hosted model. Data flows directly from your instance to the provider you choose; nothing is routed through any centralized service operated by the project. GPL-3.0, no subscriptions, no vendor lock-inStack:Backend API: FastAPI, Python 3.12, PostgreSQL 16, Redis 7 Web Dashboard: Next.js 15, React 19, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui AI Sidecar: TypeScript, Express, multi-provider proxy Android App: Kotlin, Jetpack Compose, BLE Wear OS: Kotlin, Wear Compose, Watch Face Push API Plugin SDK: Kotlin interfaces, capability-based, sandboxedLooking for contributors — especially folks with BLE/Android experience or anyone in the diabetes tech spa
AI
Questions about this idea?
FlyBot reads the scoring and gives you a second opinion on “AI·rete·RAG – a Rete rule engine decides, RAG explains why”.