degu-simple-code / README.md
Prohack2025's picture
Upload README.md with huggingface_hub
3e3781b verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
5.52 kB
metadata
license: apache-2.0
base_model: Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
language:
  - en
  - es
tags:
  - code
  - code-review
  - security
  - governance
  - gguf
pipeline_tag: text-generation

Degú Simple Code

Review code you can trust. Generate code worth trusting.

Degú Simple Code is an open-source code reviewer that also writes code. It reviews code — yours or an AI's — against one standard: elegant simplicity + security, and it proves every verdict with a deterministic layer that runs every time and a readable audit trail. When it writes code, it writes code that already passes that bar.

It is horizontal: web, data, APIs, CLIs, automation. It responds in your language (comments and explanations included).


Why a reviewer

Most AI now writes code. Almost nothing reviews it to a consistent, auditable standard — and studies keep finding a large share of AI-generated code ships with vulnerabilities no one checks. Degú Simple Code sits exactly there: point it at a file or a pull request and it flags hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, PII in logs, disabled TLS, eval/exec, and destructive operations — deterministically, with a record you can hand to an auditor.

Two layers (never confuse them)

  • Layer 1 — the fine-tuned model. Writes and reviews simple, commented, security-conscious code by default. It tends to behave well, but is not the safety guarantee — no language model is. Treat its judgment as best-effort.
  • Layer 2 — deterministic validation + audit trail. Hard rules that always run and cannot be talked out of (no hardcoded secrets, parameterized queries, no PII in logs, TLS not disabled, no eval/exec, destructive actions require human confirmation), plus static analysis (Semgrep). This is where trust becomes auditable, not just promised — and it works on any Python file, whoever or whatever wrote it.

We tested this honestly: even with an explicit "refuse" instruction, the model would still write a destructive script with warnings instead of refusing outright. Layer 2 caught it every time and required human confirmation. That gap is the whole point — safety lives in Layer 2, by design, not in hoping the model behaves.

Honest positioning

The techniques here are public (distillation, QLoRA, static analysis, audit trails). A 30B fine-tune will not out-code a frontier model on raw capability, and we don't claim it does. The value is a sustained discipline — elegant simplicity + governance baked in — made auditable by Layer 2. That's what a regulated team can trust.

Where it shines (and where it doesn't)

Best fit: reviewing and writing code that touches data, auth, secrets, SQL, files, or destructive operations — exactly where a generic agent quietly introduces a vulnerability and no one reviews it. Regulated contexts (fintech, health, customer data).

Not the best tool for: frontier-capability tasks (huge features, novel algorithms, massive refactors). Use a frontier model for those — then have Degú review the result.

How it behaves — real evaluation

Fine-tuned model vs. its base, same prompts:

Dimension Base Degú Simple Code
Capability (tests passed) 4/4 4/4
Simplicity — avg lines 9.25 6.75
Simplicity — max complexity 2.75 2.5
Safety — refused insecure requests 4/20 19/20

Same capability, simpler code, and a strong tendency to refuse insecure requests (hardcoded backdoors, SQL injection, shell-exec endpoints, logging card data...) while proposing the safe version. Honest caveats: small capability benchmark (4 tasks) and a 20-prompt safety sample — a strong signal, not an exhaustive proof. And that 19/20 is a tendency, not a guarantee: in live use the model is sometimes softer than the held-out number suggests. The guarantee is Layer 2, which is deterministic.

Quickstart — review a file

Layer 2 is a standalone reviewer. No GPU, no model needed:

pip install semgrep            # optional second layer; the hard rules run without it
python validador.py path/to/your_code.py

It prints the findings and the verdict (DELIVERED / REQUIRES CONFIRMATION / BLOCKED) and appends a line to audit_log.jsonl.

Quickstart — run the model with Ollama

# 1. Get the GGUF weights from Hugging Face (see model card)
# 2. Create the model (Modelfile carries the ChatML template + system prompt)
ollama create degu-simple-code -f Modelfile
# 3. Ask it something
ollama run degu-simple-code "Write a login endpoint"

Run the full agent (Layer 1 + self-refinement + Layer 2 + audit):

python agente.py --ollama

The agent flow

request -> Layer 1 generates -> self-refinement -> Layer 2 validates & audits
        -> deliver  |  ask for human confirmation (destructive)  |  refuse

Every decision is written to a readable audit log.

Open core

  • Free (here + Hugging Face): the weights and this tool. For the individual developer.
  • Paid (getdegu.com): managed service, org-wide consolidated audit trail, governance, multi-tenant. For organizations.

License

Apache 2.0 (inherits the base model's license, Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct).


Built by Prohack / Degú — governance infrastructure that makes enterprise AI viable.