Sakana Fugu

Sakana AI‘s multi-agent system sold as a model. You call https://api.sakana.ai/v1 with the OpenAI SDK, pass model="fugu" and a reasoning effort, and what answers is an orchestrated system routing across multiple providers underneath fugu-get-started.

The model line

fugu · fugu-ultra-v1.1 (aliased fugu-ultra) · fugu-ultra-v1.0 · fugu-cyber. Effort is high / xhigh, with max on fugu-ultra-v1.1 only (accepted elsewhere, mapped down). There is no low or medium tier — the cheap end of the effort dial doesn’t exist here, which fits a system whose Codex integration raises the stream idle timeout to two hours.

fugu-cyber is a named cyber-specialist tier, and the third in this spoke: Anthropic’s Mythos is a cyber/biology specialist rather than a capability ceiling (claude-opus-5), and Google ships Gemini 3.5 Flash Cyber as a domain-specialized model (alphabet-q2-2026-earnings). Three labs now sell security as its own SKU and none publishes what makes a model a cyber model. The governance backdrop is in the same corpus: Anthropic’s cyber-capable line drew an export ban (claude-fable-5), so this is a regulated category, not only a marketing one.

What it is, structurally

Three things stack here that this spoke usually pages separately:

1. A router. fugu routes across all supported providers by default, and you narrow the pool per API key rather than per request. That is ai-gateway behaviour — the same one-endpoint- over-many-providers layer as omniroute — except the routing isn’t the product’s name, the model’s is.
2. An agent system. The docs concede the multi-agent architecture in their first sentence, and the two-hour idle timeout is the tell: turns run at agent scale, not chat scale.
3. A model SKU. Priced, versioned, addressed by a string, with an effort parameter as the only knob the buyer turns.

Why that matters for the spoke’s map

This wiki’s map assumes a model you buy from a provider, benchmarked on capability and priced per token. Fugu breaks each assumption at once. You cannot say which model answered, so a capability benchmark measures a routing policy on the day you ran it. You cannot state a per-token price for a named model, because the composition is the product. And the provider is a reseller of other providers while presenting as a lab with its own model family — the llm-provider taxonomy’s “cloud reseller” and “frontier lab” categories collapsing into one endpoint.

The honest summary is that “model” has become a product boundary rather than a technical one. Anything can sit behind an OpenAI-compatible endpoint and be sold as a model, and increasingly what sits there is an agent system. Compare claude-opus-5‘s fast mode — a runtime toggle on identical weights — as the same trend from the other direction: the SKU stops corresponding to a set of weights.

Unknowns

Which providers are in the default pool, what the routing policy optimizes for, per-token pricing, context window, and any benchmark at all. No independent evaluation exists. All figures dated 2026-07-28 and first-party.

Related

fugu-get-started · sakana-ai · ai-gateway · omniroute · llm-provider · llm-api-pricing · claude-opus-5 · synthesis