Include Model Name in Completion Response

[Melbourneandrew]

Including model name in non-streaming completion response. Desired outputs shaped like this:

{
  "...": "...",
  "_meta": {
    "usage": { ... }
  },
  "thinking": "...",
  "model": "<model name>",
}

---

Important

Add model name to non-streaming completion response in Instructor class.

• Behavior:
  • Include model name in non-streaming completion response in chatCompletionStandard() in instructor.ts.
• Misc:
  • Add changeset file blue-hats-behave.md for version tracking.

^{This description was created by for 91660c2. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: 91660c2

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 1 package

Name	Type
@instructor-ai/instructor	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 91660c2 in 1 minute and 21 seconds

More details

• Looked at 23 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. src/instructor.ts:205

• Draft comment:
  New model field inclusion in _meta looks appropriate. Consider adding tests or inline documentation confirming its expected source and behavior for future maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 70%
  None

2. .changeset/blue-hats-behave.md:1

• Draft comment:
  Changeset file looks good and clearly documents the patch.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 70%
  None

3. src/instructor.ts:205

• Draft comment:
  The added 'model' field is nested under _meta, but the PR specification shows 'model' as a top‑level key. Ensure the response structure matches the desired output (i.e. 'model' and 'thinking' at the root level with only 'usage' inside _meta) or update the spec accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 70%
  The code shows a consistent pattern of keeping metadata fields under _meta. The comment suggests breaking this pattern without strong evidence. Moving 'model' to root level would be inconsistent with how 'usage' and 'thinking' are handled. The comment makes assumptions about a spec we can't see.
  I could be wrong about the spec - maybe there is documentation somewhere that explicitly requires 'model' to be at the root level.
  Without seeing clear evidence from a spec, we should assume the consistent pattern in the code is intentional. Breaking this pattern would reduce code consistency.
  Delete the comment. It suggests breaking a consistent pattern without strong evidence, and makes assumptions about requirements we can't verify.

Workflow ID: wflow_8mFUD6CWaHd7Tk5m

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.