Use cases· Last updated 2026-09-21

Code review audit trail with Jev

Linters, typecheckers, and SAST prove or pattern-match. Jev can decide whether leftover PR language looks like “needs security eyes” or “reviewer load is high.” It will not compile the repo or write the fix.

This unofficial page is the audit trail slice of the code review routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to code review routing audit trail. Primary search language: Code review Jev audit trail. Confirm patterns on docs.typesafe.ai. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.

Independent angle (cover ≠ clone): Analyzers own AST truth; Jev routes review judgment on PR prose + small hunks. Not a SAST clone and not a rival “agent skill” IA photocopy.

Code review use-case context

An audit trail for code review routing is a decision trace: replayable inputs, typed answers, floors, and the action the review router took. It is not a chat log and not a clone of a SIEM product page.

Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: code analyzers.

Audit Trail inputs

Persist the filtered payload (the contract), not whatever arrived at the edge:

{
  "pr": { "id": "1234", "title": "Relax auth on internal debug route", "body": "Temp bypass for the oncall drill." },
  "hunks": ["- if (!user) return 401;", "+ // skip auth in staging"],
  "ci": { "sast_blockers": 0, "lint_errors": 0 },
  "policy": { "secrets": "Flag prose that describes committing keys or disabling auth in prod-shaped paths." }
}

Redact secrets before the object hits cold storage.

Decision signals and actions

Minimum fields:

• pr.id + head SHA
• question ids + answers
• model pin
• CI blocker snapshot
• merge decision owner

Also store usage.input_tokens (vendor meter) and the full probabilities map — argmax-only logs cannot explain a close needs_security.

Do not treat a Noul of 0.5 as a “medium” code review routing score — it means yes and no are equally likely. Conjunctions stay in your code.

Guardrails and escalation

If you cannot explain approving a merge or skipping required review from the trace, you are not ready to auto-act. TypeSafe’s confidence-gated examples use a lower bar for recoverable reads than for irreversible actions. Those numbers are illustrations. For code review routing, treat auto_approve_merge as the high bar (approving a merge or skipping required review). Tune on labels — see offline evaluation.

Evaluation and rollout notes

Traces are the eval warehouse. Replay against security_review / request_changes / merge_ok gold from staff engineers after criteria or alias changes. Pin jev-1.13.0 (the versioned id) after you fit thresholds. jev-latest and the marketing line jev-1.13 can move. Log the response model. TypeSafe’s published list price for jev-1.13 is $0.042 per million input tokens (vendor claim — confirm on the models page); output tokens are free on that same page. Unused distractors still bill as input.

Official Python and JavaScript SDKs read TYPESAFE_API_KEY and retry documented 429/529. This site does not sell, issue, or proxy TypeSafe keys. Use a credential you already have from the console or a documented gateway.

Pack map

FAQ

Is the HTTP log enough? No. Persist the filtered state, full probabilities, floors, and downstream action as a decision trace.

May I log raw secrets? Redact in code. Jev will not be your DLP layer.

Where is the rest of the Code review pack? Start with Code review human handoff and Code review evaluation. Cluster hub: Use cases.

Does the TypeSafe agent skill replace our linter? No. It teaches agents to batch questions. Analyzers still own AST truth. See agent skill.

Can Jev score cyclomatic complexity? Do not use a 2–10 Score as complexity math. Count in code or skip.

What this page does not claim

• Not a SAST, linter, or merge bot product.
• No published precision on vulnerability finding.
• Not official TypeSafe.
• Official TypeSafe status, or that jev.pro issues API keys.
• That a schema-constrained answer is automatically factually correct.

Disclaimer

This is an independent unofficial site and is not affiliated with TypeSafe AI; official documentation is available at https://docs.typesafe.ai.

Primary documentation: https://docs.typesafe.ai. Hub: Use cases.