Agent skill

regex-vs-llm-structured-text

Decision framework for choosing between regex and LLM when parsing structured text — start with regex, add LLM only for low-confidence edge cases.

Stars 132,726
Forks 19,206

Install this agent skill to your Project

npx add-skill https://github.com/affaan-m/everything-claude-code/tree/main/skills/regex-vs-llm-structured-text

SKILL.md

Regex vs LLM for Structured Text Parsing

A practical decision framework for parsing structured text (quizzes, forms, invoices, documents). The key insight: regex handles 95-98% of cases cheaply and deterministically. Reserve expensive LLM calls for the remaining edge cases.

When to Activate

  • Parsing structured text with repeating patterns (questions, forms, tables)
  • Deciding between regex and LLM for text extraction
  • Building hybrid pipelines that combine both approaches
  • Optimizing cost/accuracy tradeoffs in text processing

Decision Framework

Is the text format consistent and repeating?
├── Yes (>90% follows a pattern) → Start with Regex
│   ├── Regex handles 95%+ → Done, no LLM needed
│   └── Regex handles <95% → Add LLM for edge cases only
└── No (free-form, highly variable) → Use LLM directly

Architecture Pattern

Source Text
    │
    ▼
[Regex Parser] ─── Extracts structure (95-98% accuracy)
    │
    ▼
[Text Cleaner] ─── Removes noise (markers, page numbers, artifacts)
    │
    ▼
[Confidence Scorer] ─── Flags low-confidence extractions
    │
    ├── High confidence (≥0.95) → Direct output
    │
    └── Low confidence (<0.95) → [LLM Validator] → Output

Implementation

1. Regex Parser (Handles the Majority)

python
import re
from dataclasses import dataclass

@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ParsedItem:
    id: str
    text: str
    choices: tuple[str, ...]
    answer: str
    confidence: float = 1.0

def parse_structured_text(content: str) -> list[ParsedItem]:
    """Parse structured text using regex patterns."""
    pattern = re.compile(
        r"(?P<id>\d+)\.\s*(?P<text>.+?)\n"
        r"(?P<choices>(?:[A-D]\..+?\n)+)"
        r"Answer:\s*(?P<answer>[A-D])",
        re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL,
    )
    items = []
    for match in pattern.finditer(content):
        choices = tuple(
            c.strip() for c in re.findall(r"[A-D]\.\s*(.+)", match.group("choices"))
        )
        items.append(ParsedItem(
            id=match.group("id"),
            text=match.group("text").strip(),
            choices=choices,
            answer=match.group("answer"),
        ))
    return items

2. Confidence Scoring

Flag items that may need LLM review:

python
@dataclass(frozen=True)
class ConfidenceFlag:
    item_id: str
    score: float
    reasons: tuple[str, ...]

def score_confidence(item: ParsedItem) -> ConfidenceFlag:
    """Score extraction confidence and flag issues."""
    reasons = []
    score = 1.0

    if len(item.choices) < 3:
        reasons.append("few_choices")
        score -= 0.3

    if not item.answer:
        reasons.append("missing_answer")
        score -= 0.5

    if len(item.text) < 10:
        reasons.append("short_text")
        score -= 0.2

    return ConfidenceFlag(
        item_id=item.id,
        score=max(0.0, score),
        reasons=tuple(reasons),
    )

def identify_low_confidence(
    items: list[ParsedItem],
    threshold: float = 0.95,
) -> list[ConfidenceFlag]:
    """Return items below confidence threshold."""
    flags = [score_confidence(item) for item in items]
    return [f for f in flags if f.score < threshold]

3. LLM Validator (Edge Cases Only)

python
def validate_with_llm(
    item: ParsedItem,
    original_text: str,
    client,
) -> ParsedItem:
    """Use LLM to fix low-confidence extractions."""
    response = client.messages.create(
        model="claude-haiku-4-5-20251001",  # Cheapest model for validation
        max_tokens=500,
        messages=[{
            "role": "user",
            "content": (
                f"Extract the question, choices, and answer from this text.\n\n"
                f"Text: {original_text}\n\n"
                f"Current extraction: {item}\n\n"
                f"Return corrected JSON if needed, or 'CORRECT' if accurate."
            ),
        }],
    )
    # Parse LLM response and return corrected item...
    return corrected_item

4. Hybrid Pipeline

python
def process_document(
    content: str,
    *,
    llm_client=None,
    confidence_threshold: float = 0.95,
) -> list[ParsedItem]:
    """Full pipeline: regex -> confidence check -> LLM for edge cases."""
    # Step 1: Regex extraction (handles 95-98%)
    items = parse_structured_text(content)

    # Step 2: Confidence scoring
    low_confidence = identify_low_confidence(items, confidence_threshold)

    if not low_confidence or llm_client is None:
        return items

    # Step 3: LLM validation (only for flagged items)
    low_conf_ids = {f.item_id for f in low_confidence}
    result = []
    for item in items:
        if item.id in low_conf_ids:
            result.append(validate_with_llm(item, content, llm_client))
        else:
            result.append(item)

    return result

Real-World Metrics

From a production quiz parsing pipeline (410 items):

Metric Value
Regex success rate 98.0%
Low confidence items 8 (2.0%)
LLM calls needed ~5
Cost savings vs all-LLM ~95%
Test coverage 93%

Best Practices

  • Start with regex — even imperfect regex gives you a baseline to improve
  • Use confidence scoring to programmatically identify what needs LLM help
  • Use the cheapest LLM for validation (Haiku-class models are sufficient)
  • Never mutate parsed items — return new instances from cleaning/validation steps
  • TDD works well for parsers — write tests for known patterns first, then edge cases
  • Log metrics (regex success rate, LLM call count) to track pipeline health

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

  • Sending all text to an LLM when regex handles 95%+ of cases (expensive and slow)
  • Using regex for free-form, highly variable text (LLM is better here)
  • Skipping confidence scoring and hoping regex "just works"
  • Mutating parsed objects during cleaning/validation steps
  • Not testing edge cases (malformed input, missing fields, encoding issues)

When to Use

  • Quiz/exam question parsing
  • Form data extraction
  • Invoice/receipt processing
  • Document structure parsing (headers, sections, tables)
  • Any structured text with repeating patterns where cost matters

Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.

affaan-m/everything-claude-code

python-testing

Python testing best practices using pytest including fixtures, parametrization, mocking, coverage analysis, async testing, and test organization. Use when writing or improving Python tests.

132,726 19,206
Explore
affaan-m/everything-claude-code

golang-patterns

Go-specific design patterns and best practices including functional options, small interfaces, dependency injection, concurrency patterns, error handling, and package organization. Use when working with Go code to apply idiomatic Go patterns.

132,726 19,206
Explore
affaan-m/everything-claude-code

e2e-testing

Playwright E2E testing patterns, Page Object Model, configuration, CI/CD integration, artifact management, and flaky test strategies.

132,726 19,206
Explore
affaan-m/everything-claude-code

agentic-engineering

Operate as an agentic engineer using eval-first execution, decomposition, and cost-aware model routing. Use when AI agents perform most implementation work and humans enforce quality and risk controls.

132,726 19,206
Explore
affaan-m/everything-claude-code

api-design

REST API design patterns including resource naming, status codes, pagination, filtering, error responses, versioning, and rate limiting for production APIs.

132,726 19,206
Explore
affaan-m/everything-claude-code

python-patterns

Python-specific design patterns and best practices including protocols, dataclasses, context managers, decorators, async/await, type hints, and package organization. Use when working with Python code to apply Pythonic patterns.

132,726 19,206
Explore

Didn't find tool you were looking for?

Be as detailed as possible for better results