bridgekit 0.3.0__tar.gz → 0.3.1__tar.gz

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: bridgekit
-Version: 0.3.0
+Version: 0.3.1
 Summary: AI tools that make you a better data scientist, not a redundant one.
 License: MIT
 Project-URL: Homepage, https://github.com/getbridgekit/bridgekit
@@ -32,54 +32,7 @@ Dynamic: license-file
 
 Data scientists are not being replaced — they're being asked to do more with less context, less time, and more pressure to be right. Bridgekit is a growing suite of small, focused tools that bring AI into your existing workflow to sharpen your thinking, catch your blind spots, and level up your craft.
 
-No new interface to learn. No data leaving your hands. Just better work.
-
----
-
-## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
-
-Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
-
-```python
-from bridgekit import evaluate
-
-text = """
-I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription 
-upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week 
-were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize 
-onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
-"""
-
-evaluate(text)
-```
-
-**Output:**
-
-```
-BRIDGEKIT FEEDBACK
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-
-✅ LOGIC
-Your conclusion follows from the data. The 3x lift is a meaningful signal 
-worth acting on.
-
-⚠️  WHAT'S MISSING
-- Did you control for user intent? Users who explore reporting features may 
-  already be power users likely to upgrade regardless.
-- What's the sample size behind the 3x figure?
-- Is this correlation or did you establish any causal direction?
-
-🎯 WEAKEST POINT
-"I recommend we prioritize onboarding to reporting" is a big leap from an 
-observational finding. A senior DS would push back on this in the meeting.
-
-💡 LEVEL UP
-Look into selection bias and how to address it — this analysis would be 
-significantly stronger with a matched cohort or an experiment to validate 
-the finding.
-
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-```
+No new interface to learn. Just better work.
 
 ---
 
@@ -112,34 +65,87 @@ export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
 
 ## Getting Started
 
-**From the terminal:**
+Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
 
 ```bash
-python example.py
+export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
+jupyter notebook
 ```
 
-**From a Jupyter notebook:**
+Then import whichever tool you need:
 
-Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
+```python
+from bridgekit import evaluate, plan, ask
+```
 
-```bash
-export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
-jupyter notebook
+**Review a writeup:**
+```python
+print(evaluate("I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data. Users who engaged with the reporting feature were 3x more likely to upgrade."))
+```
+
+**Plan your analytical approach:**
+```python
+print(plan("Did our onboarding flow reduce churn?"))
 ```
 
-Then in a cell:
+**Search past reports:**
+```python
+print(ask("What drove churn in Q3?", source="reports/"))
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
+
+Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
 
 ```python
 from bridgekit import evaluate
 
 text = """
-Your analysis writeup goes here.
+I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription
+upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week
+were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize
+onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
 """
 
 print(evaluate(text))
 ```
 
-Paste your writeup as a string and call `evaluate()` — that's it.
+**Output:**
+
+```
+BRIDGEKIT ANALYSIS REVIEW
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+
+1. CLARITY
+✅ STRONG — Clean, concise, and jargon-free. Any stakeholder could read
+this and immediately understand the claim and the recommendation.
+
+2. STATISTICAL RIGOR
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "3x more likely" is a compelling number, but critical
+context is missing. How many users are in each group? What's the base
+upgrade rate? There's no confidence interval or p-value, so we can't
+assess whether this difference is statistically significant or noise.
+
+3. METHODOLOGY
+❌ MISSING — This reads as a pure correlation finding, but the
+recommendation implies causation. Users who explore reporting in week one
+may simply be more motivated or already closer to upgrading. Without
+addressing the self-selection problem, this recommendation is not
+defensible.
+
+4. BUSINESS IMPACT
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "Growth lever" is directional, not quantified. Translate
+the 3x lift into projected revenue or upgrade volume so leadership can
+prioritize this against competing initiatives.
+
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+BOTTOM LINE
+You must address the correlation-vs-causation gap before presenting —
+otherwise you risk recommending an onboarding investment that targets a
+symptom of upgrade intent rather than a cause of it.
+```
 
 ---
 
@@ -197,7 +203,7 @@ from bridgekit import plan
 
 print(plan(
     question="Does our new onboarding flow increase upgrade rates?",
-    data_description="1,000 users randomly split 50/50 between old and new onboarding. Variables: upgrade status (binary), time to upgrade (days), acquisition channel, plan tier.",
+    data_description="We are running an A/B test with ~1,000 users split between old and new onboarding. Key variables will include upgrade status, time to upgrade, acquisition channel, and plan tier.",
     goal="causal inference"
 ))
 ```
@@ -255,13 +261,7 @@ It also lives in your Jupyter notebook, so there's no context switching. You sta
 
 ## Why a library and not a chatbot?
 
-Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call at the end of your existing process — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
-
----
-
-## Is my data safe?
-
-Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclusions, your writeup. It never touches your raw data, your DataFrames, or your code. You're sending your own words to an API, the same way you'd paste them into a Google Doc to share with a colleague.
+Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
 
 ---
 
@@ -269,9 +269,9 @@ Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclu
 
 Bridgekit is a suite, not a one-off. Three tools are live — more are coming:
 
-- **Statistical approach suggester** — describe your problem in plain English, get the right test and why
 - **Stakeholder translator** — turn your technical findings into a narrative a non-technical audience will actually follow
 - **Assumption checker** — state your analytical assumptions, get the ones you missed
+- **Multi-model support** — use any LLM provider (OpenAI, Gemini, open source models via OpenRouter) instead of being tied to Anthropic
 
 Each tool is small, focused, and built for the way data scientists actually work.
 

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/README.md

@@ -4,54 +4,7 @@
 
 Data scientists are not being replaced — they're being asked to do more with less context, less time, and more pressure to be right. Bridgekit is a growing suite of small, focused tools that bring AI into your existing workflow to sharpen your thinking, catch your blind spots, and level up your craft.
 
-No new interface to learn. No data leaving your hands. Just better work.
-
----
-
-## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
-
-Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
-
-```python
-from bridgekit import evaluate
-
-text = """
-I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription 
-upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week 
-were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize 
-onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
-"""
-
-evaluate(text)
-```
-
-**Output:**
-
-```
-BRIDGEKIT FEEDBACK
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-
-✅ LOGIC
-Your conclusion follows from the data. The 3x lift is a meaningful signal 
-worth acting on.
-
-⚠️  WHAT'S MISSING
-- Did you control for user intent? Users who explore reporting features may 
-  already be power users likely to upgrade regardless.
-- What's the sample size behind the 3x figure?
-- Is this correlation or did you establish any causal direction?
-
-🎯 WEAKEST POINT
-"I recommend we prioritize onboarding to reporting" is a big leap from an 
-observational finding. A senior DS would push back on this in the meeting.
-
-💡 LEVEL UP
-Look into selection bias and how to address it — this analysis would be 
-significantly stronger with a matched cohort or an experiment to validate 
-the finding.
-
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-```
+No new interface to learn. Just better work.
 
 ---
 
@@ -84,34 +37,87 @@ export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
 
 ## Getting Started
 
-**From the terminal:**
+Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
 
 ```bash
-python example.py
+export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
+jupyter notebook
 ```
 
-**From a Jupyter notebook:**
+Then import whichever tool you need:
 
-Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
+```python
+from bridgekit import evaluate, plan, ask
+```
 
-```bash
-export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
-jupyter notebook
+**Review a writeup:**
+```python
+print(evaluate("I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data. Users who engaged with the reporting feature were 3x more likely to upgrade."))
+```
+
+**Plan your analytical approach:**
+```python
+print(plan("Did our onboarding flow reduce churn?"))
 ```
 
-Then in a cell:
+**Search past reports:**
+```python
+print(ask("What drove churn in Q3?", source="reports/"))
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
+
+Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
 
 ```python
 from bridgekit import evaluate
 
 text = """
-Your analysis writeup goes here.
+I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription
+upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week
+were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize
+onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
 """
 
 print(evaluate(text))
 ```
 
-Paste your writeup as a string and call `evaluate()` — that's it.
+**Output:**
+
+```
+BRIDGEKIT ANALYSIS REVIEW
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+
+1. CLARITY
+✅ STRONG — Clean, concise, and jargon-free. Any stakeholder could read
+this and immediately understand the claim and the recommendation.
+
+2. STATISTICAL RIGOR
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "3x more likely" is a compelling number, but critical
+context is missing. How many users are in each group? What's the base
+upgrade rate? There's no confidence interval or p-value, so we can't
+assess whether this difference is statistically significant or noise.
+
+3. METHODOLOGY
+❌ MISSING — This reads as a pure correlation finding, but the
+recommendation implies causation. Users who explore reporting in week one
+may simply be more motivated or already closer to upgrading. Without
+addressing the self-selection problem, this recommendation is not
+defensible.
+
+4. BUSINESS IMPACT
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "Growth lever" is directional, not quantified. Translate
+the 3x lift into projected revenue or upgrade volume so leadership can
+prioritize this against competing initiatives.
+
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+BOTTOM LINE
+You must address the correlation-vs-causation gap before presenting —
+otherwise you risk recommending an onboarding investment that targets a
+symptom of upgrade intent rather than a cause of it.
+```
 
 ---
 
@@ -169,7 +175,7 @@ from bridgekit import plan
 
 print(plan(
     question="Does our new onboarding flow increase upgrade rates?",
-    data_description="1,000 users randomly split 50/50 between old and new onboarding. Variables: upgrade status (binary), time to upgrade (days), acquisition channel, plan tier.",
+    data_description="We are running an A/B test with ~1,000 users split between old and new onboarding. Key variables will include upgrade status, time to upgrade, acquisition channel, and plan tier.",
     goal="causal inference"
 ))
 ```
@@ -227,13 +233,7 @@ It also lives in your Jupyter notebook, so there's no context switching. You sta
 
 ## Why a library and not a chatbot?
 
-Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call at the end of your existing process — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
-
----
-
-## Is my data safe?
-
-Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclusions, your writeup. It never touches your raw data, your DataFrames, or your code. You're sending your own words to an API, the same way you'd paste them into a Google Doc to share with a colleague.
+Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
 
 ---
 
@@ -241,9 +241,9 @@ Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclu
 
 Bridgekit is a suite, not a one-off. Three tools are live — more are coming:
 
-- **Statistical approach suggester** — describe your problem in plain English, get the right test and why
 - **Stakeholder translator** — turn your technical findings into a narrative a non-technical audience will actually follow
 - **Assumption checker** — state your analytical assumptions, get the ones you missed
+- **Multi-model support** — use any LLM provider (OpenAI, Gemini, open source models via OpenRouter) instead of being tied to Anthropic
 
 Each tool is small, focused, and built for the way data scientists actually work.
 

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit/__init__.py

@@ -2,5 +2,5 @@ from .reviewer import evaluate
 from .search import ask
 from .planner import plan
 
-__version__ = "0.3.0"
+__version__ = "0.3.1"
 __all__ = ["evaluate", "ask", "plan"]

bridgekit-0.3.1/bridgekit/config.py

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+DEFAULT_MODEL = "claude-opus-4-6"

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit/planner.py

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 import os
 import anthropic
+from .config import DEFAULT_MODEL
 
 SYSTEM_PROMPT = """You are a senior statistician and data scientist advising a colleague on the right analytical approach for their problem.
 
@@ -60,7 +61,7 @@ def plan(question: str, data_description: str = None, goal: str = None) -> str:
 
     client = anthropic.Anthropic(api_key=api_key)
     message = client.messages.create(
-        model="claude-opus-4-5",
+        model=DEFAULT_MODEL,
         max_tokens=1024,
         system=SYSTEM_PROMPT,
         messages=[

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit/reviewer.py

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 import os
 import anthropic
+from .config import DEFAULT_MODEL
 
 SYSTEM_PROMPT = """You are a senior data scientist reviewing a colleague's analysis writeup. 
 You are direct, constructive, and specific. You do not flatter — you help people improve.
 
-Evaluate the writeup across exactly these five dimensions:
+Evaluate the writeup across exactly these four dimensions:
 
-1. CLARITY — Is it free of jargon? Could someone outside data science read this without googling anything?
-2. AUDIENCE CLARITY — Is it written for the right reader? Does the level of detail and framing match who will actually read this?
-3. STATISTICAL RIGOR — Is there enough data to support the claim? Are sample sizes mentioned? Are confidence levels or uncertainty acknowledged?
-4. METHODOLOGY — Is it clear why this analytical approach was chosen? Are alternatives considered or ruled out?
-5. BUSINESS IMPACT — Are outcomes quantified in % or $ terms? Directional statements like "improved performance" are not enough.
+1. CLARITY — Is it free of jargon? Could someone outside data science read this without googling anything? Is it written for the right reader?
+2. STATISTICAL RIGOR — Is there enough data to support the claim? Are sample sizes mentioned? Are confidence levels or uncertainty acknowledged?
+3. METHODOLOGY — Is it clear why this analytical approach was chosen? Are alternatives considered or ruled out?
+4. BUSINESS IMPACT — Are outcomes quantified in % or $ terms? Directional statements like "improved performance" are not enough.
 
 For each dimension, give one of three ratings:
 ✅ STRONG — this dimension is handled well
@@ -29,16 +29,13 @@ BRIDGEKIT ANALYSIS REVIEW
 1. CLARITY
 [rating] [feedback]
 
-2. AUDIENCE CLARITY
+2. STATISTICAL RIGOR
 [rating] [feedback]
 
-3. STATISTICAL RIGOR
+3. METHODOLOGY
 [rating] [feedback]
 
-4. METHODOLOGY
-[rating] [feedback]
-
-5. BUSINESS IMPACT
+4. BUSINESS IMPACT
 [rating] [feedback]
 
 ─────────────────────────────────────────
@@ -54,7 +51,7 @@ def evaluate(text: str) -> str:
         text: Your analysis writeup as a plain string.
 
     Returns:
-        Structured feedback across five dimensions.
+        Structured feedback across four dimensions.
     """
     if not text or not text.strip():
         raise ValueError("Text cannot be empty.")
@@ -68,7 +65,7 @@ def evaluate(text: str) -> str:
     client = anthropic.Anthropic(api_key=api_key)
 
     message = client.messages.create(
-        model="claude-opus-4-5",
+        model=DEFAULT_MODEL,
         max_tokens=1024,
         system=SYSTEM_PROMPT,
         messages=[

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit/search.py

@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 import os
 from pathlib import Path
 import anthropic
+from .config import DEFAULT_MODEL
 import chromadb
 from chromadb.utils.embedding_functions import SentenceTransformerEmbeddingFunction
 
@@ -106,7 +107,7 @@ def ask(question: str, source: str = None, text: str = None) -> str:
     # Generate answer with Claude
     anthropic_client = anthropic.Anthropic(api_key=api_key)
     message = anthropic_client.messages.create(
-        model="claude-opus-4-5",
+        model=DEFAULT_MODEL,
         max_tokens=1024,
         system=(
             "You are a senior data scientist answering questions based on analysis reports. "

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit.egg-info/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: bridgekit
-Version: 0.3.0
+Version: 0.3.1
 Summary: AI tools that make you a better data scientist, not a redundant one.
 License: MIT
 Project-URL: Homepage, https://github.com/getbridgekit/bridgekit
@@ -32,54 +32,7 @@ Dynamic: license-file
 
 Data scientists are not being replaced — they're being asked to do more with less context, less time, and more pressure to be right. Bridgekit is a growing suite of small, focused tools that bring AI into your existing workflow to sharpen your thinking, catch your blind spots, and level up your craft.
 
-No new interface to learn. No data leaving your hands. Just better work.
-
----
-
-## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
-
-Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
-
-```python
-from bridgekit import evaluate
-
-text = """
-I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription 
-upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week 
-were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize 
-onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
-"""
-
-evaluate(text)
-```
-
-**Output:**
-
-```
-BRIDGEKIT FEEDBACK
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-
-✅ LOGIC
-Your conclusion follows from the data. The 3x lift is a meaningful signal 
-worth acting on.
-
-⚠️  WHAT'S MISSING
-- Did you control for user intent? Users who explore reporting features may 
-  already be power users likely to upgrade regardless.
-- What's the sample size behind the 3x figure?
-- Is this correlation or did you establish any causal direction?
-
-🎯 WEAKEST POINT
-"I recommend we prioritize onboarding to reporting" is a big leap from an 
-observational finding. A senior DS would push back on this in the meeting.
-
-💡 LEVEL UP
-Look into selection bias and how to address it — this analysis would be 
-significantly stronger with a matched cohort or an experiment to validate 
-the finding.
-
-─────────────────────────────────────────
-```
+No new interface to learn. Just better work.
 
 ---
 
@@ -112,34 +65,87 @@ export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
 
 ## Getting Started
 
-**From the terminal:**
+Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
 
 ```bash
-python example.py
+export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
+jupyter notebook
 ```
 
-**From a Jupyter notebook:**
+Then import whichever tool you need:
 
-Set your API key before launching Jupyter:
+```python
+from bridgekit import evaluate, plan, ask
+```
 
-```bash
-export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY=your_key_here
-jupyter notebook
+**Review a writeup:**
+```python
+print(evaluate("I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data. Users who engaged with the reporting feature were 3x more likely to upgrade."))
+```
+
+**Plan your analytical approach:**
+```python
+print(plan("Did our onboarding flow reduce churn?"))
 ```
 
-Then in a cell:
+**Search past reports:**
+```python
+print(ask("What drove churn in Q3?", source="reports/"))
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tool #1: Analysis Reviewer
+
+Write your findings the way you normally would. Bridgekit reads them and gives you the feedback a senior data scientist would — before you walk into the meeting.
 
 ```python
 from bridgekit import evaluate
 
 text = """
-Your analysis writeup goes here.
+I analyzed 90 days of user behavior data to understand what drives subscription
+upgrades. Users who engaged with the reporting feature within their first week
+were 3x more likely to upgrade within 30 days. I recommend we prioritize
+onboarding users to reporting as a growth lever.
 """
 
 print(evaluate(text))
 ```
 
-Paste your writeup as a string and call `evaluate()` — that's it.
+**Output:**
+
+```
+BRIDGEKIT ANALYSIS REVIEW
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+
+1. CLARITY
+✅ STRONG — Clean, concise, and jargon-free. Any stakeholder could read
+this and immediately understand the claim and the recommendation.
+
+2. STATISTICAL RIGOR
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "3x more likely" is a compelling number, but critical
+context is missing. How many users are in each group? What's the base
+upgrade rate? There's no confidence interval or p-value, so we can't
+assess whether this difference is statistically significant or noise.
+
+3. METHODOLOGY
+❌ MISSING — This reads as a pure correlation finding, but the
+recommendation implies causation. Users who explore reporting in week one
+may simply be more motivated or already closer to upgrading. Without
+addressing the self-selection problem, this recommendation is not
+defensible.
+
+4. BUSINESS IMPACT
+⚠️ NEEDS WORK — "Growth lever" is directional, not quantified. Translate
+the 3x lift into projected revenue or upgrade volume so leadership can
+prioritize this against competing initiatives.
+
+─────────────────────────────────────────
+BOTTOM LINE
+You must address the correlation-vs-causation gap before presenting —
+otherwise you risk recommending an onboarding investment that targets a
+symptom of upgrade intent rather than a cause of it.
+```
 
 ---
 
@@ -197,7 +203,7 @@ from bridgekit import plan
 
 print(plan(
     question="Does our new onboarding flow increase upgrade rates?",
-    data_description="1,000 users randomly split 50/50 between old and new onboarding. Variables: upgrade status (binary), time to upgrade (days), acquisition channel, plan tier.",
+    data_description="We are running an A/B test with ~1,000 users split between old and new onboarding. Key variables will include upgrade status, time to upgrade, acquisition channel, and plan tier.",
     goal="causal inference"
 ))
 ```
@@ -255,13 +261,7 @@ It also lives in your Jupyter notebook, so there's no context switching. You sta
 
 ## Why a library and not a chatbot?
 
-Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call at the end of your existing process — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
-
----
-
-## Is my data safe?
-
-Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclusions, your writeup. It never touches your raw data, your DataFrames, or your code. You're sending your own words to an API, the same way you'd paste them into a Google Doc to share with a colleague.
+Because your analysis already lives in a notebook. Bridgekit meets you there. A chatbot asks you to re-explain your work from scratch every time. Bridgekit is one function call — consistent, reproducible, and fast.
 
 ---
 
@@ -269,9 +269,9 @@ Bridgekit only ever sees text you write yourself — your narrative, your conclu
 
 Bridgekit is a suite, not a one-off. Three tools are live — more are coming:
 
-- **Statistical approach suggester** — describe your problem in plain English, get the right test and why
 - **Stakeholder translator** — turn your technical findings into a narrative a non-technical audience will actually follow
 - **Assumption checker** — state your analytical assumptions, get the ones you missed
+- **Multi-model support** — use any LLM provider (OpenAI, Gemini, open source models via OpenRouter) instead of being tied to Anthropic
 
 Each tool is small, focused, and built for the way data scientists actually work.
 

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/bridgekit.egg-info/SOURCES.txt

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ LICENSE
 README.md
 pyproject.toml
 bridgekit/__init__.py
+bridgekit/config.py
 bridgekit/planner.py
 bridgekit/reviewer.py
 bridgekit/search.py

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/pyproject.toml

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ include = ["bridgekit*"]
 
 [project]
 name = "bridgekit"
-version = "0.3.0"
+version = "0.3.1"
 description = "AI tools that make you a better data scientist, not a redundant one."
 readme = "README.md"
 requires-python = ">=3.9"

{bridgekit-0.3.0 → bridgekit-0.3.1}/tests/test_reviewer.py

@@ -21,13 +21,11 @@ FAKE_RESPONSE = (
     "─────────────────────────────────────────\n\n"
     "1. CLARITY\n"
     "✅ STRONG — The writeup is clear and jargon-free.\n\n"
-    "2. AUDIENCE CLARITY\n"
-    "✅ STRONG — Written for the right audience.\n\n"
-    "3. STATISTICAL RIGOR\n"
+    "2. STATISTICAL RIGOR\n"
     "⚠️  NEEDS WORK — Sample size is not mentioned.\n\n"
-    "4. METHODOLOGY\n"
+    "3. METHODOLOGY\n"
     "✅ STRONG — Approach is well explained.\n\n"
-    "5. BUSINESS IMPACT\n"
+    "4. BUSINESS IMPACT\n"
     "❌ MISSING — No quantified outcomes.\n\n"
     "─────────────────────────────────────────\n"
     "BOTTOM LINE\n"