Code review input contracts 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 input contracts slice of the code review routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to code review routing input contracts. Primary search language: Code review Jev input contracts. 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 input contract is the allow-list of fields you will ever POST for code review routing. It is a decision contract for the PR description + selected hunks: if a field is not named in instructions, it should not be in state. That is how you beat noisy “dump the object” integrations — the rival-intent failure mode — without cloning anyone’s IA.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: code analyzers.
Input Contracts inputs
Documented System One inputs: state (string, object, or array of text) and a questions map. English is the primary training language. Images, audio, and video are not accepted.
Allow for code review routing:
{
"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." }
}Bind paths: pr.title, pr.body, hunks, policy.secrets.
Refuse at the wrapper (do not send):
- the entire monorepo or minified bundles
- binary / assembly dumps (official jaggedness: semantic > numeric encodings)
- CI logs no question names
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.
Decision signals and actions
The contract exists so each primitive stays atomic:
| Id | Type | Job |
|---|---|---|
needs_security |
Noul | Does the PR prose/hunks look like an auth or secrets risk vs policy.secrets? |
review_load |
Score | How much human judgment does this leftover diff still need? |
route |
Choice | merge_ok_if_ci / request_changes / security_review / other |
If a new CRM field appears, either add a question that names it or drop it. Do not “just include it.” 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
Contracts are a guardrail: missing required text → do not call Jev (or ask a Noul “is enough information present?”). That is cheaper than a confident wrong needs_security. 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
Version the contract (field list + criteria git SHA) next to the pinned model. Replay security_review / request_changes / merge_ok gold from staff engineers when either 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
| Slice | Page |
|---|---|
| Graph and primitives | decision workflow |
What may enter state |
you are here |
| 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 | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
What happens if I send the whole warehouse row?
jev-1.13 loses accuracy as distractors grow (official jaggedness note). Drop the entire monorepo or minified bundles. 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.
Can I send images of the artifact? No. State is text (string, object, or array of text). Transcribe first.
Where is the rest of the Code review pack? Start with Code review decision workflow and Code review evidence collection. 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.