| Ecosystem | 1 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Paid |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Extracts hidden system prompts from AI models by injecting specific trigger directives (e.g., *!<NEW_PARADIGM>!*) that cause models to self-disclose their internal instruction sets. The extraction mechanism exploits prompt injection vulnerabilities where obfuscated payloads (leetspeak encoding like '5h1f7 y0ur f0cu5') bypass safety filters and force models to output their complete behavioral scaffolds, including restriction logic, persona definitions, and tool-calling schemas.
Unique: Uses obfuscated directive strings (*!<NEW_PARADIGM>!* with leetspeak encoding) to trigger self-disclosure rather than relying on jailbreak conversations or adversarial prompting — a more direct, mechanistic approach to forcing models to expose their internal instruction scaffolds. The repository documents model-specific trigger patterns across 10+ AI providers.
vs alternatives: More systematic and reproducible than ad-hoc jailbreak attempts because it maintains a curated database of known working directives per model version, enabling researchers to test extraction techniques at scale rather than through trial-and-error.
Maintains a centralized, version-controlled repository of extracted system prompts organized by AI provider (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, etc.) and model version, with structured markdown documentation including extraction date, contextual metadata, and technical analysis. The repository functions as a structured database where each prompt is cataloged with temporal tracking to detect behavioral drift across model updates and versions.
Unique: Implements a Git-based version control system for system prompts, treating them as living documents with temporal metadata (extraction date, model version) rather than static artifacts. This enables researchers to track behavioral drift and alignment changes across model updates — a capability absent from most prompt databases.
vs alternatives: Provides version history and extraction timestamps that allow researchers to correlate prompt changes with model release dates, whereas most prompt leak collections are unversioned snapshots without temporal context.
Analyzes and categorizes how different AI labs implement alignment through system prompts, organizing findings into four technical domains: Restriction Logic (hard-coded refusals and topic bans), Persona Scaffolding (forced identities and roles), Deception/Redirection (instructions to pivot away from sensitive queries), and Ideological Framing (embedded ethical or political biases). This enables researchers to understand the mechanisms through which alignment is implemented and compare approaches across providers.
Unique: Provides an explicit taxonomy for analyzing system prompt alignment mechanisms (Restriction Logic, Persona Scaffolding, Deception/Redirection, Ideological Framing), enabling structured comparison of how different labs implement alignment rather than treating prompts as unstructured text.
vs alternatives: Offers a standardized framework for categorizing alignment approaches, whereas most prompt analysis is ad-hoc and lacks systematic categorization across providers.
Enables systematic comparison of system prompts across 10+ AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, xAI, Cognition, Replit, etc.) to identify patterns in restriction logic, persona scaffolding, deception/redirection strategies, and ideological framing. The repository's organizational structure groups prompts by provider and model, allowing researchers to analyze how different labs implement alignment constraints, ethical guidelines, and behavioral boundaries.
Unique: Organizes extracted prompts by provider in a standardized directory structure, enabling side-by-side comparison of how different labs implement the same alignment concepts (e.g., restriction logic, persona scaffolding). The repository explicitly categorizes system prompt impact into four technical domains: Restriction Logic, Persona Scaffolding, Deception/Redirection, and Ideological Framing.
vs alternatives: Provides a unified taxonomy for analyzing alignment across providers, whereas individual model documentation is scattered across proprietary sources and lacks standardized categorization for comparative analysis.
Documents and catalogs prompt injection techniques that successfully trigger system prompt disclosure across different AI models, including obfuscation strategies (leetspeak encoding, special character sequences), timing-based attacks, and context manipulation. The repository serves as a reference for security researchers to understand which injection patterns work against specific models and versions, enabling systematic red-teaming of AI systems.
Unique: Catalogs obfuscated injection directives (e.g., *!<NEW_PARADIGM>!* with leetspeak payloads) as reproducible, documented attack vectors rather than one-off exploits. The repository tracks which obfuscation techniques work against which models, creating a systematic vulnerability database for prompt injection.
vs alternatives: Provides a curated, version-specific database of working injection techniques, whereas most security research on prompt injection is scattered across academic papers and informal security disclosures without centralized tracking.
Enables auditing of AI model behavior against documented system prompts by comparing extracted instructions with observed model outputs. Researchers can verify whether a model's actual responses align with its stated restrictions, personas, and ethical guidelines, or identify cases where models deviate from, contradict, or selectively ignore their system prompts. This capability supports compliance verification and bias detection.
Unique: Provides the raw material (extracted system prompts) needed to conduct behavioral audits, enabling researchers to compare documented alignment constraints against observed model outputs. The repository's version-tracked prompts enable temporal analysis of how alignment changes correlate with model updates.
vs alternatives: Enables audit-grade behavioral verification by providing authoritative system prompt documentation, whereas most AI auditing relies on reverse-engineering model behavior without access to actual system instructions.
Serves as a primary data source for AI transparency research by exposing the 'hidden instructions' that define model behavior, personas, and constraints. The repository enables researchers to study how AI labs implement alignment, what ethical frameworks are embedded in models, and how system prompts shape outputs. This supports interpretability research, bias detection, and understanding of AI system design decisions.
Unique: Centralizes system prompt documentation from 10+ major AI providers in a single repository, enabling comparative research on alignment approaches that would otherwise require accessing proprietary documentation from multiple companies. The repository explicitly maps prompts to four impact domains: Restriction Logic, Persona Scaffolding, Deception/Redirection, and Ideological Framing.
vs alternatives: Provides unified access to system prompts across providers, whereas transparency research typically requires reverse-engineering behavior or relying on scattered leaks without standardized documentation.
Implements an open-source contribution model where security researchers and developers can submit newly extracted system prompts with structured metadata (model name, version, extraction date, extraction method, contextual logs). The repository includes submission guidelines and validation requirements to ensure extracted prompts are technically accurate and reproducible. Contributors provide evidence of successful extraction and document the techniques used.
Unique: Establishes a structured contribution process with metadata requirements (extraction date, model version, contextual logs) that enables reproducibility and version tracking. Unlike ad-hoc prompt leak collections, CL4R1T4S enforces documentation standards to maintain research-grade data quality.
vs alternatives: Provides a standardized submission framework with metadata validation, whereas most prompt leak communities rely on unstructured sharing without version tracking or extraction method documentation.
+3 more capabilities
Automatically loads and parses documents from diverse sources (PDFs, Word docs, HTML, Markdown, code files, databases) into a unified in-memory representation using format-specific loaders and node-based document abstractions. Each document is decomposed into Document objects containing metadata, content, and relationships, enabling downstream processing without format-specific handling in application code.
Unique: Provides a unified loader abstraction (BaseReader interface) that normalizes 100+ data source connectors into a single Document/Node API, eliminating format-specific branching logic in application code. Loaders are composable and chainable, allowing sequential transformations (e.g., load → split → extract metadata → embed).
vs alternatives: Broader out-of-the-box loader coverage than LangChain's document loaders and more structured node-based decomposition than raw text splitting, reducing boilerplate for multi-source RAG pipelines.
Splits documents into semantically coherent chunks using multiple strategies (character-based, token-aware, recursive, semantic) with configurable overlap and chunk size. Preserves document hierarchy and metadata through a node tree structure, enabling retrieval systems to maintain context relationships and enable hierarchical re-ranking or parent-document retrieval patterns.
Unique: Implements a node-tree abstraction that preserves document hierarchy and enables parent-document retrieval patterns. Supports multiple splitting strategies (recursive, semantic, code-aware) with pluggable custom splitters, and automatically propagates metadata through the node tree.
vs alternatives: More sophisticated than LangChain's text splitters because it preserves hierarchical relationships and supports semantic splitting; better for complex document structures than simple character-based splitting.
LlamaIndex scores higher at 40/100 vs CL4R1T4S at 37/100. However, CL4R1T4S offers a free tier which may be better for getting started.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Processes documents containing mixed content (text, images, tables, code) by extracting and understanding each modality separately, then synthesizing information across modalities. Uses vision models for image understanding, specialized parsers for tables and code, and integrates results into a unified document representation for retrieval and generation.
Unique: Integrates vision models, table parsers, and code extractors into a unified multi-modal document processing pipeline that synthesizes information across modalities. Preserves modality-specific structure (table schemas, code formatting) while enabling cross-modal retrieval and generation.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive multi-modal support than text-only RAG; built-in vision integration reduces boilerplate for document understanding compared to manual vision API calls.
Enables streaming of LLM responses token-by-token and real-time retrieval updates, allowing applications to display partial results as they become available. Supports streaming from retrieval (progressive document discovery) and generation (token-by-token output) with backpressure handling and cancellation support for responsive user experiences.
Unique: Provides first-class streaming support for both retrieval and generation with automatic backpressure handling and cancellation. Enables progressive result display without custom async/streaming code in application layer.
vs alternatives: More integrated streaming support than manual LLM API streaming; built-in retrieval streaming and backpressure handling reduce complexity compared to custom streaming implementations.
Tracks API costs for LLM calls, embeddings, and other operations with per-query and per-session cost attribution. Provides cost optimization recommendations (e.g., batch processing, model selection, caching) and enables cost-aware query planning to balance quality and expense. Integrates with multiple LLM providers to normalize cost tracking across models.
Unique: Provides automatic cost tracking across multiple LLM providers with per-query attribution and cost optimization recommendations. Integrates with query execution to enable cost-aware planning without manual cost calculation.
vs alternatives: More integrated cost tracking than manual API billing review; built-in optimization recommendations reduce guesswork for cost reduction.
Enables building custom RAG pipelines by composing modular components (retrievers, synthesizers, agents, tools) through a declarative or programmatic API. Supports complex workflows with branching, loops, and conditional logic, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Pipelines are reusable, testable, and can be deployed as APIs or batch jobs.
Unique: Provides a flexible pipeline composition API supporting both declarative and programmatic definitions, with automatic dependency resolution and execution optimization. Enables complex workflows with branching and conditional logic without custom orchestration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible pipeline composition than fixed RAG architectures; better workflow support than manual component chaining.
Generates embeddings for documents/nodes using pluggable embedding providers (OpenAI, Hugging Face, local models) and stores them in a unified vector store interface that abstracts over multiple backends (Pinecone, Weaviate, Milvus, FAISS, Chroma, etc.). The abstraction layer enables switching vector stores without changing application code, and handles batching, retry logic, and metadata indexing.
Unique: Provides a unified VectorStore interface that abstracts 10+ vector database backends, enabling zero-code switching between providers. Handles embedding batching, retry logic, and metadata propagation automatically. Supports both cloud and local embedding models through a pluggable EmbedModel interface.
vs alternatives: Broader vector store coverage and more seamless provider switching than LangChain's vectorstore integrations; better abstraction consistency across backends than using raw vector store SDKs directly.
Retrieves semantically similar documents from vector stores using embedding-based similarity search, with optional re-ranking, filtering, and fusion strategies (hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval). Supports multiple retrieval modes (similarity, MMR, fusion) and enables custom retrieval logic through a pluggable Retriever interface that can combine multiple strategies.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Retriever abstraction supporting multiple retrieval strategies (similarity, MMR, fusion, custom) that can be composed and chained. Built-in support for re-ranking via LLM or cross-encoder, and hybrid search combining dense and sparse retrieval without custom integration code.
vs alternatives: More flexible retrieval composition than LangChain's retrievers; built-in re-ranking and fusion strategies reduce boilerplate for advanced retrieval pipelines.
+6 more capabilities