langchain-experiments

How we checked

On 2026-09-13 we read this project’s repository metadata, its file tree and its manifest files through the GitHub API, and followed the outbound link far enough to confirm the address resolves — not that what is behind it is what this page says. That is a records check, not an assessment of the software. What we ran ourselves is linked under Receipts above; each linked receipt page names the method, the toolchain and the result. We installed or resolved its dependencies and nothing more. We did not run the software itself.

What the words mean here. Last commit is the date of the newest commit on the default branch, not the date of the repository’s last push to any branch. A licence name is GitHub’s own detection, not our reading of the licence file. A version floor is what the named manifest file declares, quoted from that file. A gap in months is printed whenever it is 12 complete months or more. A licence is not a price. It says what you may do with the source; it says nothing about whether the author sells a hosted tier, a paid image or support. Where this page states a cost, that is something we read and dated. Where it states none, we did not look. A version floor we did not find is a claim about a search: we list the project’s whole file tree and match it against the manifest families we read for a floor — package.json, pyproject.toml, go.mod, pom.xml and Dockerfile among them. A manifest family we do not read could still declare one, and a file that pins packages rather than an interpreter, such as a requirements.txt, is not a floor. Where a receipt is linked above, the file it names may not be the file named for the version floor: the floor is read from whichever manifest declares it, while the receipt names whichever manifest the installer was pointed at. They answer different questions.