2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Ilker ManapandClaude Opus 5.5	2f07b2ba0b	Document guardrails, correct what data.md said leaves the cluster, and regenerate the reference ... Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-04 12:36:37 +02:00
Ilker ManapandClaude Opus 5	b7a97468e0	Answer the two questions asked before a gateway is allowed near anything ... Neither had a page. "We have GPUs, now what" was left to the reader, and what llmgw stores was scattered across four documents and a changelog — which is the same as not being written down when somebody is doing a security review. docs/data.md describes the behaviour and leaves the legal mapping to whoever holds the obligation. Every claim in it was checked against the source, and it names where to look for each: usage rows carry no text field, keys are stored hashed, conversations are off until a named project turns them on and cannot be turned on without a retention window. It also states the egress exactly, which took reading every outbound call to say honestly: nothing on the serving path leaves the cluster, and the two things that can reach outside — fetching weights, and ctl plan reading a model's architecture — are both started by an operator. Weight fetching points wherever you tell it, including an internal mirror. docs/choosing-models.md is the opinion llmgw itself does not have. Three jobs rather than one model, with the third — embeddings — being the one that gets forgotten and the one that decides whether the deployment can answer questions about your company or only questions in general. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-27 08:16:08 +02:00