Turn AI pilots into production systems you can trust.
Most AI pilots never become production systems. Not because the models are too weak. Because the architecture is too fragile. OpenSymbolicAI gives enterprises the reliability, auditability, cost control, and safety controls required to put AI agents into real workflows.
Early access for production teams.
For leaders under pressure to ship AI safely
The pilot worked. Now comes the hard part: making it reliable, auditable, and economical in production.
Your customers expect reliability. But today's agent stacks are expensive, unpredictable, hard to audit, and risky to connect to real systems.
OpenSymbolicAI gives you a production architecture for AI agents: deterministic execution, lower cost per task, full traceability, and structural controls around sensitive actions.
Ship more pilots to production
Architecture designed for repeatability, testing, and auditability.
Cut inference waste
Fewer LLM calls per task means lower unit economics.
Reduce operational risk
Every step is logged, replayable, and governed.
Make AI accountable
Behavior is versioned in code, not buried in prompts.
Protect the business
Sensitive data and mutations are controlled structurally, not by hoping the model behaves.
Standardize across teams
One framework across languages, models, and stacks. No more siloed prompt setups per product.
The numbers executives ask for before scaling AI.
From demo culture to production discipline.
The companies that win with AI will not be the ones with the cleverest prompts. They will be the ones that can ship reliable, governed, cost-effective AI systems into real workflows.
That means agents need to behave like software.
Typed interfaces. Versioned logic. Tests. Traces. Code review. Deterministic execution. The same engineering discipline that made software reliable now has to apply to AI.
Why agents that demo well break in the real world.
A general-purpose platform for shipping AI agents.
OpenSymbolicAI gives teams a standard way to build reliable, auditable, cost-controlled agents across languages, models, and deployment environments. Not a one-off chatbot framework. An architecture for turning AI workflows into production software.
How OpenSymbolicAI runs agents like software.
Three concepts that turn prompt spaghetti into software you can actually ship.
Define
Typed primitives: the atomic actions your agent can take, like search, retrieve, or send email.
Compose
Wire primitives into decompositions: named workflows the agent selects by matching user intent.
Run
Call agent.run() and intent matching picks the right decomposition. Guardrails are built in.
The code difference
Typed primitives, explicit decompositions, deterministic execution, replayable traces.
tools = [
{"name": "retrieve", "description": "Search the doc store..."},
{"name": "rerank", "description": "Rerank docs by relevance..."},
{"name": "extract", "description": "Extract an answer from docs..."},
]
prompt = f"""You are a RAG assistant. CRITICAL: Use ONLY retrieved info.
## QUERY CLASSIFICATION (classify BEFORE acting):
- Simple factual → retrieve(k=3) → extract
- Complex/deep dive → retrieve(k=8) → rerank(k=3) → extract
- Comparison → retrieve(topic_A) + retrieve(topic_B) → extract
## RESPONSE FORMAT (STRICT):
Return JSON: {{"thinking": "...", "tool_calls": [...],
"final_answer": "...", "sources": [...], "confidence": 0.0-1.0}}
## TOOL PARAMETER RULES:
- retrieve: k must be 3-10, query must be <100 chars
- rerank: only after retrieve, k <= original k
- extract: requires non-empty doc list
## CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS:
❌ NEVER hallucinate or make up information
❌ NEVER call extract without first calling retrieve
❌ NEVER exceed confidence 0.9 without source validation
✓ ALWAYS cite sources with doc_id references
✓ ALWAYS include confidence scores
REMEMBER: You are a RETRIEVAL assistant, not a knowledge base.
Query: {query}"""
# Agentic loop: the LLM picks the next tool every turn.
# Every iteration re-reads the prompt and the full history.
messages = [{"role": "system", "content": prompt}]
while True:
response = llm.complete(messages, tools=tools)
if not response.tool_calls:
return response.content
messages.append(response.message)
for tc in response.tool_calls:
result = execute_tool(tc.name, tc.arguments)
messages.append({"role": "tool", "content": result})
# 10-50 iterations later, hopefully an answer.class RAGAgent(PlanExecute):
@primitive
def retrieve(self, q: str, k: int = 5) -> list[Document]: ...
@primitive
def rerank(self, docs, q: str) -> list[Document]: ...
@primitive
def extract(self, docs, q: str) -> str: ...
@decomposition(intent="What is machine learning?")
def simple_qa(self):
docs = self.retrieve("machine learning definition", k=3)
return self.extract(docs, "What is machine learning?")
@decomposition(intent="Explain the architecture of transformers")
def deep_dive(self):
docs = self.retrieve("transformer architecture innovations", k=8)
ranked = self.rerank(docs, "transformer architecture")
return self.extract(ranked, "Explain transformer architecture")
@decomposition(intent="Compare React vs Vue")
def compare(self):
docs = self.retrieve("React") + self.retrieve("Vue")
return self.extract(docs, "Compare React vs Vue")
# Intent matching happens automatically:
answer = agent.run("What is attention?")
deep_dive = agent.run("Deep dive on transformers")
comparison = agent.run("React vs Vue")tools = [
{"name": "retrieve", "description": "Search the doc store..."},
{"name": "rerank", "description": "Rerank docs by relevance..."},
{"name": "extract", "description": "Extract an answer from docs..."},
]
prompt = f"""You are a RAG assistant. CRITICAL: Use ONLY retrieved info.
## QUERY CLASSIFICATION (classify BEFORE acting):
- Simple factual → retrieve(k=3) → extract
- Complex/deep dive → retrieve(k=8) → rerank(k=3) → extract
- Comparison → retrieve(topic_A) + retrieve(topic_B) → extract
## RESPONSE FORMAT (STRICT):
Return JSON: {{"thinking": "...", "tool_calls": [...],
"final_answer": "...", "sources": [...], "confidence": 0.0-1.0}}
## TOOL PARAMETER RULES:
- retrieve: k must be 3-10, query must be <100 chars
- rerank: only after retrieve, k <= original k
- extract: requires non-empty doc list
## CRITICAL CONSTRAINTS:
❌ NEVER hallucinate or make up information
❌ NEVER call extract without first calling retrieve
❌ NEVER exceed confidence 0.9 without source validation
✓ ALWAYS cite sources with doc_id references
✓ ALWAYS include confidence scores
REMEMBER: You are a RETRIEVAL assistant, not a knowledge base.
Query: {query}"""
# Agentic loop: the LLM picks the next tool every turn.
# Every iteration re-reads the prompt and the full history.
messages = [{"role": "system", "content": prompt}]
while True:
response = llm.complete(messages, tools=tools)
if not response.tool_calls:
return response.content
messages.append(response.message)
for tc in response.tool_calls:
result = execute_tool(tc.name, tc.arguments)
messages.append({"role": "tool", "content": result})
# 10-50 iterations later, hopefully an answer.class RAGAgent(PlanExecute):
@primitive
def retrieve(self, q: str, k: int = 5) -> list[Document]: ...
@primitive
def rerank(self, docs, q: str) -> list[Document]: ...
@primitive
def extract(self, docs, q: str) -> str: ...
@decomposition(intent="What is machine learning?")
def simple_qa(self):
docs = self.retrieve("machine learning definition", k=3)
return self.extract(docs, "What is machine learning?")
@decomposition(intent="Explain the architecture of transformers")
def deep_dive(self):
docs = self.retrieve("transformer architecture innovations", k=8)
ranked = self.rerank(docs, "transformer architecture")
return self.extract(ranked, "Explain transformer architecture")
@decomposition(intent="Compare React vs Vue")
def compare(self):
docs = self.retrieve("React") + self.retrieve("Vue")
return self.extract(docs, "Compare React vs Vue")
# Intent matching happens automatically:
answer = agent.run("What is attention?")
deep_dive = agent.run("Deep dive on transformers")
comparison = agent.run("React vs Vue")Two worlds. Same job. Different outcomes.
| Traditional agent stacks | OpenSymbolicAI |
|---|---|
| Behavior hidden in prompts | Behavior defined in code |
| 10-50+ LLM calls per task | 1-3 LLM calls, then code executes |
| Errors discovered at runtime | Errors caught at plan/design time |
| Prompt injection mitigated by instructions | Boundaries enforced structurally |
| Hard to test and replay | Fully traced, replayable workflows |
| One-off prompt patches | Reusable primitives improve every workflow |
Independent benchmarks
From the Blog
Technical articles and insights about building AI applications.
DesignExecute: When Straight-Line Plans Aren't Enough
PlanExecute forbids loops and conditionals on purpose. DesignExecute adds them back, with guardrails, for the problems that actually need control flow. Here's when to reach for it, and what stays the same.
Third Language, Same Result: MultiHopRAG in Go
Go joins Python and C# on the MultiHopRAG benchmark. Different runtime, different vector store, single static binary. Accuracy: 81.6%. The framework holds.
Change Everything, Change Nothing: MultiHopRAG in Python and C#
We swapped the language, the vector store, the code executor, and the type system. Accuracy moved by 0.9pp. The framework is the invariant, not the infrastructure.
Ship the AI you said you would.
Early access for production teams. Patent pending. Self-hosted or managed.