Code review evaluation 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 evaluation slice of the code review routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to code review routing evaluation. Primary search language: Code review Jev evaluation. 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
Evaluation for code review routing is a frozen harness, not a vibe check and not an opinion-blog “Jev review.” Labels: security_review / request_changes / merge_ok gold from staff engineers. We publish no unofficial accuracy.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: code analyzers.
Evaluation inputs
Replay the same contract you ship:
{
"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." }
}Freeze questions, criteria, and jev-1.13.0. Record the response model.
Decision signals and actions
Score these, not a blog-grade star rating:
- Missed auth-bypass language on a planted set
- False security pages (reviewer fatigue)
- Override rate after humans read the same hunks
Pair auto-act errors with handoff rate. If the review router never acts, you have not evaluated code review routing — you have evaluated a human queue.
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
Promote a threshold only when the harness says auto-act error ≤ SLA and reviewers still catch the residual. 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
After any criteria edit, rerun before production. Cookbook lifts you see on TypeSafe pages are vendor claims — re-measure on your PR description + selected hunkss. 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
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
input contracts |
| What to gather first | evidence collection |
| Atomic rules | policy checks |
| Act / review / abstain | confidence thresholds |
| Reviewer payload | human handoff |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | failure modes |
| Labeled replay | you are here |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
Will jev.pro publish a leaderboard for this use case? No. Measure on your labels. Vendor cookbook figures stay labeled as vendor claims.
What must stay frozen? Questions, criteria, and the pinned model id. Aliases can move.
Where is the rest of the Code review pack? Start with Code review failure modes and Code review production rollout. 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.
Sources
Public TypeSafe or adjacent documentation only. No private claims.