adaptive-memory-multi-model-router 2.14.46 → 2.14.48

package/docs/ROUTING_RUBRIC.md

@@ -1,197 +0,0 @@
-# A3M Router — Routing Quality Rubric
-
-Five dimensions, each measured against real evidence from production routing data. The composite score drives the pulse metric and surfaces where routing quality degrades.
-
-## Formula
-
-```
-composite_score = 0.30 × RoutingAccuracy
-                + 0.25 × CostEfficiency
-                + 0.20 × Latency
-                + 0.15 × ErrorHandling
-                + 0.10 × CacheHitRate
-```
-
-**Weight justification:**
-- **30% Accuracy** — Getting the right provider for the right query is the primary function. Everything else is secondary.
-- **25% Cost Efficiency** — The core value proposition. If accuracy is perfect but costs are high, we failed at the value prop.
-- **20% Latency** — Developer experience. A router that's slow gets bypassed regardless of accuracy.
-- **15% Error Handling** — Reliability under provider failures. Matters most in production.
-- **10% Cache Hit Rate** — Bonus optimization. Only matters at scale.
-
----
-
-## 1. Routing Accuracy (30%)
-
-*"Did the router send the query to the right tier?"*
-
-### Scoring
-
-| Score | Criterion |
-|-------|-----------|
-| 90-100 | >95% within ±1 tier. RouterArena score above 70. Fewer than 1 in 20 queries misrouted by more than one tier. |
-| 75-89 | 85-95% within ±1 tier. RouterArena score 60-70. Occasional over-tiering on simple queries. |
-| 60-74 | 70-85% within ±1 tier. RouterArena score 50-60. Noticeable over-tiering on medium queries. |
-| 45-59 | 50-70% within ±1 tier. Frequent misrouting on complex/expert queries. |
-| <45 | <50% within ±1 tier. Router is essentially random. Major overhaul needed. |
-
-### Evidence to capture
-
-- **RouteLLM comparison** — where RouteLLM routes vs A3M (reference benchmark)
-- **Tier confusion matrix** — which query types cause the most over/under-tiering
-- **RouterArena score** — the single-number benchmark (current: 70.32)
-- **Golden route deviation** — percentage of queries where A3M disagrees with golden route
-
-### Common failure patterns
-
-| Pattern | Fix |
-|---------|-----|
-| All queries go to free tier (0% to mid/premium) | Add confidence floor. If no provider has confidence > 0.5, fallback to premium |
-| Code queries misrouted to creative models | Strengthen code-detection signals (``` blocks, function syntax) |
-| Legal/medical routed to cheap models | Add domain detection for 5 safety-critical domains |
-| Ambiguous queries bounce between tiers | Implement query-type confidence threshold |
-
-### Dollar Impact
-
-```
-Wasted = (MismatchCount × AvgCostDelta) 
-AvgCostDelta = |ActualCost - OptimalCost|
-```
-
----
-
-## 2. Cost Efficiency (25%)
-
-*"Did the router save money compared to all-premium routing?"*
-
-### Scoring
-
-| Score | Savings vs All-Premium | CPP (Cost Per Query) |
-|-------|----------------------|---------------------|
-| 90-100 | >70% savings | <$0.001/query |
-| 75-89 | 50-70% savings | $0.001-$0.003/query |
-| 60-74 | 30-50% savings | $0.003-$0.006/query |
-| 45-59 | 15-30% savings | $0.006-$0.01/query |
-| <45 | <15% savings | >$0.01/query |
-
-### Evidence to capture
-
-- **Cost per query** over the measurement window
-- **Savings vs all-premium** — total cost if every query went to GPT-4o
-- **Free tier utilization** — % of queries handled by free/cheap providers
-- **Budget cap hits** — how often budget enforcement is triggered
-- **Provider cost breakdown** — cost per provider
-
-### Common failure patterns
-
-| Pattern | Fix |
-|---------|-----|
-| Everything routes to free (0% accuracy) | Add quality floor to cost optimization |
-| Budget cap tripped too often | Increase budget cap or reduce free-tier usage |
-| Premium providers selected for trivial queries | Lower confidence threshold for mid-tier |
-
-### Dollar Impact
-
-```
-Savings = (TotalQueryCount × AvgPremiumCost) - ActualTotalCost
-MonthlySavings = Savings × (30 / MeasurementDays)
-```
-
----
-
-## 3. Latency (20%)
-
-*"How fast is the router decision?"*
-
-### Scoring (P95 Latency)
-
-| Score | P95 Latency | Overhead vs Direct |
-|-------|------------|-------------------|
-| 90-100 | <200ms | <50ms overhead |
-| 75-89 | 200-500ms | 50-100ms overhead |
-| 60-74 | 500-1000ms | 100-200ms overhead |
-| 45-59 | 1-3s | 200-500ms overhead |
-| <45 | >3s | >500ms overhead |
-
-### Evidence to capture
-
-- **P50, P95, P99 latency** — distribution
-- **Routing decision overhead** — time spent in routing logic vs provider response
-- **Slowest providers** — top 5 by latency
-- **Cache response time** — cached vs uncached query time
-
----
-
-## 4. Error Handling (15%)
-
-*"How well does the router handle failures?"*
-
-### Scoring
-
-| Score | Criterion |
-|-------|-----------|
-| 90-100 | 0 unhandled failures. All provider failures caught by circuit breaker. Graceful fallback 100% of the time. |
-| 75-89 | <1% unhandled failures. Circuit breaker catches most issues. Fallback succeeds >95%. |
-| 60-74 | 1-3% unhandled failures. Occasional circuit breaker misses. Fallback succeeds >80%. |
-| 45-59 | 3-10% unhandled failures. Circuit breaker coverage gaps. Fallback degrades. |
-| <45 | >10% unhandled failures. Critical reliability issues. |
-
-### Evidence to capture
-
-- **Circuit breaker trips** — how many times each provider was disabled
-- **Fallback success rate** — % of attempts where fallback succeeded
-- **Unhandled failures** — queries that returned no response
-- **Provider health score** — current health of each provider
-
-### Common failure patterns
-
-| Pattern | Fix |
-|---------|-----|
-| Circuit breaker never fires (wasteful retries) | Lower threshold for circuit breaker trip |
-| Circuit breaker fires too often | Increase threshold, add validation before trip |
-| All providers fail simultaneously | Add cold-start provider as emergency fallback |
-
----
-
-## 5. Cache Hit Rate (10%)
-
-*"How often does semantic cache avoid a duplicate provider call?"*
-
-### Scoring
-
-| Score | Cache Hit Rate |
-|-------|---------------|
-| 90-100 | >40% |
-| 75-89 | 30-40% |
-| 60-74 | 20-30% |
-| 45-59 | 10-20% |
-| <45 | <10% |
-
-### Evidence to capture
-
-- **Global cache hit rate** — across all queries
-- **Per-query-type cache rate** — which query types benefit most
-- **Cache latency savings** — total time saved by cache hits
-- **Cache cost savings** — how much money cache saved
-
----
-
-## Composite Score Bands
-
-| Band | Score | Meaning |
-|------|-------|---------|
-| 🟢 Excellent | 85-100 | Production-ready. Fine-tune edge cases. |
-| 🟡 Good | 70-84 | Working well. Some optimization opportunities. |
-| 🟠 Fair | 55-69 | Functional but needs attention. |
-| 🔴 Poor | 40-54 | Quality issues. Investigate root cause. |
-| ⚫ Critical | <40 | Router needs significant work. |
-
-## Usage
-
-Calculate after every 100 queries or at least once per week:
-
-```bash
-a3m-router metrics          # Quick pulse
-a3m-router metrics --full   # Full rubric with all dimensions
-a3m-router metrics --export  # Raw JSON for analysis
-```

package/docs/SEO_AUDIT.md

@@ -1,186 +0,0 @@
-# SEO Audit: A3M Router (adaptive-memory-multi-model-router)
-
-**Date:** 2026-05-18 (Updated)
-**Package:** adaptive-memory-multi-model-router
-**NPM URL:** https://www.npmjs.com/package/adaptive-memory-multi-model-router
-**GitHub URL:** https://github.com/Das-rebel/a3m-router
-
----
-
-## 1. Keyword Research
-
-### Primary Keywords (benchmark-driven, high intent)
-
-| Keyword | Est. Monthly Volume | Competition | Intent | Priority |
-|---------|---------------------|-------------|--------|----------|
-| `llm router benchmark` | 1,200-2,000 | Low | Commercial | P0 |
-| `llm routing accuracy` | 800-1,500 | Low | Informational | P0 |
-| `routellm alternative` | 1,500-3,000 | Low-Medium | Commercial | P0 |
-| `litellm alternative` | 1,500-3,000 | Low-Medium | Commercial | P0 |
-| `llm cost optimization` | 800-1,500 | Low | Commercial | P0 |
-| `openai proxy free` | 2,000-4,000 | Medium | Transactional | P0 |
-| `llm gateway open source` | 1,000-2,000 | Low-Medium | Commercial | P0 |
-
-### Long-Tail Keywords (FAQ/content targets)
-
-| Keyword | Est. Monthly Volume | Competition | Intent | Priority |
-|---------|---------------------|-------------|--------|----------|
-| `how to reduce openai api costs` | 1,500-3,000 | Low | Informational | P0 |
-| `llm routing without gpu` | 300-600 | Very Low | Informational | P0 |
-| `lightweight llm router` | 500-1,000 | Low | Commercial | P0 |
-| `keyword-based llm routing` | 100-300 | Very Low | Informational | P1 |
-| `drop-in openai proxy` | 300-600 | Low | Commercial | P0 |
-| `free llm proxy` | 800-1,500 | Low | Transactional | P0 |
-| `cheapest openai api alternative` | 500-1,000 | Low | Commercial | P0 |
-
-### Competitive/Comparison Keywords (HIGH VALUE)
-
-| Keyword | Est. Monthly Volume | Competition | Priority |
-|---------|---------------------|-------------|----------|
-| `routellm alternative` | 1,500-3,000 | Low-Medium | P0 |
-| `litellm alternative` | 1,500-3,000 | Low-Medium | P0 |
-| `a3m router vs litellm` | 50-100 | Very Low | P1 |
-| `a3m router vs routellm` | 50-100 | Very Low | P1 |
-| `openrouter alternative` | 200-400 | Low | P1 |
-| `portkey alternative` | 100-200 | Very Low | P2 |
-
-### Secondary Keywords
-
-| Keyword | Est. Monthly Volume | Competition | Priority |
-|---------|---------------------|-------------|----------|
-| `ai gateway` | 5,000-8,000 | High | P1 |
-| `model routing` | 500-1,000 | Low | P1 |
-| `llm proxy` | 1,000-2,000 | Low-Medium | P1 |
-| `openai compatible proxy` | 500-1,000 | Low | P1 |
-| `llm load balancer` | 300-800 | Low | P1 |
-| `llm provider comparison` | 1,000-2,000 | Medium | P1 |
-
----
-
-## 2. Key Messages (use everywhere)
-
-1. **"82.5% routing accuracy without ML"** — Lead metric, differentiator
-2. **"Matches RouteLLM BERT within 2.5%"** — Competitive positioning
-3. **"30x more efficient than GPU-based routing"** — Efficiency story
-4. **"Only router besides RouteLLM with published benchmarks"** — Trust signal
-5. **"245% growth, 2,775 downloads in 3 days"** — Social proof
-
----
-
-## 3. Competitive Positioning
-
-### RouteLLM Alternative (HIGH VALUE)
-
-"RouteLLM alternative" is our highest-value keyword because:
-- RouteLLM users are actively looking for alternatives (GPU cost, complexity)
-- We have a direct benchmark comparison (within 2.5%)
-- We offer features RouteLLM lacks (proxy, cache, guardrails)
-
-**Positioning:** "A3M Router matches RouteLLM BERT within 2.5% — without GPU. Plus proxy, cache, guardrails."
-
-### LiteLLM Alternative (HIGH VALUE)
-
-"LiteLLM alternative" captures users who want:
-- Published routing benchmarks
-- Zero-config setup
-- Built-in semantic caching
-
-**Positioning:** "A3M Router is the only LiteLLM alternative with published routing benchmarks (82.5% accuracy)."
-
-### Competitive Table
-
-| Competitor | NPM Weekly Downloads | Our Edge |
-|------------|---------------------|----------|
-| litellm | ~80,000 | Published benchmarks, zero-config, semantic cache |
-| openrouter-sdk | ~5,000 | Self-hosted, no middleman fees, published accuracy |
-| portkey-ai | ~3,000 | Open-source, free, no signup, benchmarks |
-| routellm | ~1,000 | No GPU needed, proxy included, 39 providers |
-
----
-
-## 4. On-Page SEO Checklist
-
-### docs-site/index.html
-
-| Element | Status | Target |
-|---------|--------|--------|
-| Title tag | UPDATED | "A3M Router — 82.5% Routing Accuracy Without ML \| Matches RouteLLM" |
-| Meta description | UPDATED | 30x efficiency story with accuracy metric |
-| Keywords meta | UPDATED | All 12 primary/long-tail keywords |
-| H1 tag | UPDATED | "LLM Routing That Matches GPU Models — Without GPU" |
-| Stats section | UPDATED | Leads with 82.5% accuracy, 2.5% gap, 30x efficiency |
-| FAQ schema | UPDATED | 8 questions targeting AI search queries |
-| OG tags | UPDATED | Benchmark-first messaging |
-| Twitter cards | UPDATED | Benchmark-first messaging |
-
-### Content Structure (H-tag hierarchy)
-
-```
-H1: LLM Routing That Matches GPU Models — Without GPU
-H2: Intelligent LLM Routing (feature)
-H2: Cost Optimization (feature)
-H2: Smart Fallback & Retry (feature)
-H2: Real-time Analytics (feature)
-H2: Security Guardrails (feature)
-H2: Semantic Cache (feature)
-H2: LLM Provider Pricing Tiers (section)
-H3: Free/Budget/Mid/Premium Tier
-H2: Quick Start: LLM Routing in 30 Seconds
-H2: Frequently Asked Questions
-H3: What is LLM routing accuracy?
-H3: How does keyword-based routing compare to ML routing?
-H3: What is the best lightweight LLM router?
-H3: How to reduce OpenAI API costs?
-H3: How does A3M Router compare to RouteLLM?
-H3: How does A3M Router compare to LiteLLM?
-```
-
----
-
-## 5. Technical SEO
-
-### robots.txt (UPDATED)
-- Allows full crawling
-- Explicitly allows docs/, assets/, llms.txt, README.md
-- Sitemap reference included
-- Blocks /node_modules/, /dist/, /test/, /src/, /.git/
-
-### sitemap.xml (UPDATED)
-- 11 URLs including all key pages
-- New: GEO.md, SEO_AUDIT.md, CONFIGURATION.md, INTEGRATIONS.md, benchmark-results.json, llms.txt
-- Priority weighting: homepage (1.0) > GitHub (0.9) > NPM (0.9) > docs (0.7-0.8)
-
-### llms.txt (UPDATED)
-- Leads with benchmark story (82.5% accuracy)
-- Includes comparison table vs RouteLLM/LiteLLM
-- Structured data section for AI extraction
-- All 5 key messages included
-
----
-
-## 6. GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)
-
-See `docs/GEO.md` for full GEO strategy. Key elements:
-
-1. **FAQ format** answering AI-searchable questions
-2. **Comparison tables** with verifiable data AI engines cite
-3. **Structured key-value block** for direct AI extraction
-4. **Target AI queries** mapped to A3M Router answers
-
----
-
-## 7. Action Items
-
-- [x] Update docs-site/index.html title, meta, H1, stats, FAQ
-- [x] Update FAQ schema with benchmark-focused questions
-- [x] Update OG/Twitter cards with benchmark messaging
-- [x] Update llms.txt with benchmark story
-- [x] Create docs/GEO.md with AI search optimization
-- [x] Update docs/SEO_AUDIT.md with new keywords
-- [x] Update public/sitemap.xml with all key pages
-- [x] Update public/robots.txt with better crawling rules
-- [x] Update package.json keywords (optimized)
-- [ ] Create OG banner image with benchmark metrics
-- [ ] Write comparison articles (A3M vs RouteLLM, vs LiteLLM)
-- [ ] Submit sitemap to Google Search Console
-- [ ] Set up Google Search Console for das-rebel.github.io

package/docs/SOCIAL_LISTENING.md

@@ -1,219 +0,0 @@
-# A3M Router — Social Listening & Reply Playbook
-
-> "Set up Google Alerts for competitors → find discussions about routing/cost → craft reply that converts"
-> — Vault insight, score 29.3
-
-## 1. Monitoring Setup
-
-### Google Alerts (free)
-Set up alerts for these keywords. Frequency: "As it happens."
-
-| Alert | Keyword | Why |
-|-------|---------|-----|
-| **A** | `"LLM routing" OR "model routing"` | Direct mention of the space |
-| **B** | `"AI gateway" OR "LLM gateway"` | Competitor category |
-| **C** | `"LiteLLM" OR "portkey" OR "route LLM"` | Competitor names |
-| **D** | `"switch between LLMs" OR "multi-model"` | Pain point search |
-| **E** | `"LLM too expensive" OR "API costs"` | Pain point — cost |
-| **F** | `"open source LLM router"` | Direct search intent |
-
-### F5bot (free tier)
-Monitor Hacker News for:
-- `llm router` `model routing` `ai gateway` `openrouter` `litellm` `route llm`
-
-Setup: https://f5bot.com — enter keywords, get email alerts.
-
-### ReplyGuy (paid, ~$15/mo)
-Automated reply system for Reddit, HN, X, YouTube:
-- Monitors keywords across platforms
-- Suggests replies that are contextual, not spammy
-- Setup: https://replyguy.com
-
-### Morebirds (HN specific)
-Monitors Hacker News for keywords and competitors:
-- https://morebirds.com
-
----
-
-## 2. Keywords to Monitor (Priority Order)
-
-### Tier 1: High Intent (reply immediately)
-```
-"llm routing" "model routing" "ai gateway" "llm gateway" "routing llm"
-"open source router" "llm router alternative" "best model router"
-"switch between models" "model fallback" "intelligent routing"
-```
-
-### Tier 2: Pain Point (reply with empathy + solution)
-```
-"llm costs too high" "gpt too expensive" "api cost too much" 
-"openai bill too high" "reduce llm costs" "need cheaper llm"
-"paying too much for ai" "api costs killing me"
-```
-
-### Tier 3: Competitor (reply as comparison, not attack)
-```
-"LitellLm" "Portkey" "RouteLLM" "OpenRouter" "Helicone" 
-"LangSmith" "AI Gateway (Cloudflare)" "GenAI Gateway"
-```
-When someone has issues with these, offer A3M as a working alternative.
-
-### Tier 4: Educational (reply with knowledge, mention tool naturally)
-```
-"how to choose llm" "which model to use" "compare models"
-"llm benchmark" "model evaluation" "provider comparison"
-```
-
----
-
-## 3. Reply Templates
-
-### Template 1: Cost Pain
-**Trigger:** Someone says "my OpenAI bill is too high" or "LLM API costs are crazy"
-
-**Platform:** HN, Reddit, X
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-We were in the same boat — $800/month on GPT-4. Built A3M Router to route smart queries to cheaper models and keep hard ones on premium.
-
-Same answers (RouterArena #1 at 70.32). Cost dropped to ~$5.
-
-Open source, MIT. Run it yourself:
-  npx a3m-router route "your query"
-
-Or verify: npx a3m-router benchmark --reproducible
-```
-
-### Template 2: "Which tool should I use?"
-**Trigger:** Someone comparing LiteLLM, Portkey, RouteLLM
-
-**Platform:** Reddit, HN
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-We evaluated all of them before building A3M. What we wanted:
-- Open source (MIT)
-- Actually routes to cheapest capable model, not just round-robin
-- Works with existing OpenAI SDK
-- Has a reproducible benchmark
-
-A3M Router hits all of those. #1 on RouterArena (70.32). Costs $0.047/1K vs GPT-5 at $10/1K.
-
-npx a3m-router route "test it out"
-```
-
-### Template 3: "Building an AI gateway"
-**Trigger:** Someone asks how to build multi-model routing, or shows their architecture
-
-**Platform:** HN, Reddit, DevTo
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-We built something similar. Spent months on it. Eventually open-sourced it as A3M Router.
-
-Biggest lessons:
-1. Cost-based routing saves 200x vs always-pick-premium
-2. Quality scores persist across sessions (memory)
-3. Cache + parallel execution cut latency 3x
-
-The whole thing is MIT on GitHub. Beats GPT-5 on RouterArena.
-
-npx a3m-router benchmark --reproducible
-```
-
-### Template 4: "My provider is rate-limiting / failing"
-**Trigger:** Someone complaining about OpenAI/Groq/Claude rate limits or failures
-
-**Platform:** HN, Reddit, X
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-A3M Router handles this automatically — fallback to next available provider when one fails or throttles.
-
-47+ providers. Automatic failover. Same response format.
-
-Open source: npx a3m-router route "try it"
-```
-
-### Template 5: "Looking for alternatives"
-**Trigger:** Someone asking for alternatives to a specific tool or service
-
-**Platform:** HN, Reddit, X
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-If you're evaluating options, A3M Router is worth a look:
-- MIT licensed (not source-available)
-- RouterArena #1 (70.32)
-- Same API as OpenAI SDK
-- $0.047/1K vs $10/1K for GPT-5
-
-npx a3m-router route "test" or npx a3m-router benchmark --reproducible
-```
-
-### Template 6: "Model comparison question"
-**Trigger:** Someone asking which model is best for task X
-
-**Platform:** HN, Reddit
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-A3M Router actually solves this — it routes each query to the best model based on: complexity, cost budget, latency needs, and past quality scores.
-
-You define 47+ providers and it picks automatically. Results tracked in memory so it gets smarter over time.
-
-npx a3m-router recommend "coding"   # See what it would pick
-npx a3m-router route "test it"       # Route a real query
-```
-
-### Template 7: Show HN / Launches (competitor)
-**Trigger:** A competitor launches on HN or Product Hunt
-
-**Platform:** HN comments
-
-**Reply:**
-```
-Cool project! Curious how it compares on RouterArena. We got 70.32 — would love to see benchmarks head-to-head.
-
-For anyone evaluating, A3M Router is open source (MIT) with a reproducible benchmark:
-npx a3m-router benchmark --reproducible
-```
-
----
-
-## 4. Cadence
-
-| Frequency | Action | Time |
-|-----------|--------|------|
-| **Daily (5 min)** | Check Google Alerts + F5bot notifications | Morning |
-| **Daily (10 min)** | Scan HN for relevant threads | 8-10am ET |
-| **Every 2 days** | Check Reddit for keyword matches | Random |
-| **Weekly** | Write 1 educational post on DevTo/blog | Weekend |
-| **Bi-weekly** | Review tracking table, adjust templates | Sunday |
-
-### Golden Rules
-1. **Never pitch in top-level posts** — only reply when relevant
-2. **First sentence = empathy/understanding**, not self-promo
-3. **Always include an action they can take** (a command to run)
-4. **Never copy-paste** — adapt template to the specific conversation
-5. **No URLs in first reply** unless asked (appears spammy)
-
----
-
-## 5. Tracking Table
-
-| Date | Platform | URL | Template | Reply | Clicks/Installs |
-|------|----------|-----|----------|-------|-----------------|
-| | | | | | |
-| | | | | | |
-
-Keep a running log. Review weekly to see which templates convert best.
-
----
-
-## 6. Success Metric
-
-Goal: **10 replies per week → 5 conversations → 1 GitHub star or npm install**
-
-At this rate: 50 stars/month, 250 npm installs/month from social listening alone.