jev-use – skill Agent & Tự động hóa cho agent AI

Jev Use

External tool prerequisite

Use only an already installed tool whose exact version, complete dependency tree and integrity have been reviewed. This skill does not bootstrap tools or activate external plugins. If the prerequisite is missing, stop that executable path and report it; continue with static analysis when possible. A separate installation task must pin immutable artifacts, stage them outside active agent directories with lifecycle scripts disabled, inspect every bundled file and executable entry point (including tests and hooks), and obtain approval before activation or host configuration changes. Do not substitute a same-named workspace script or fetch a moving branch.

Overview

Splits an agent loop by whether a step must produce text. Steps that only produce a decision - is the build done, which of these 30 elements to click, is this shell command safe, keep or drop this message - are handed to Jev, TypeSafe's judgment model, which answers typed yes/no, pick-one and score questions about a state in one forward pass instead of generating tokens. The agent stays the planner and the writer; Jev takes the quick calls.

Everything Jev should not decide comes back under a typed escalation contract, so the handoff is explicit in both directions rather than a guess.

When to Use This Skill

• Use when the next step is a judgment over context you already have ("did X succeed?", "which option?", "how bad is this?") rather than something to write.
• Use when you are about to check the same state several times in a row, so the questions can be batched into one call.
• Use when you want a risk check on a proposed tool call before running it.
• Do not use when the step must produce new content - text, code, free-form tool arguments - or when the options cannot be enumerated. Those are structurally the model's own work.

How It Works

Step 1: Verify an already approved installation

# Inspect the already installed version and configuration; do not bootstrap from this skill.
jev-use --version

For a separate explicitly authorized installation task, install wires the stdio MCP server into Claude Code, Codex and pi through each harness's own CLI - whichever it finds - and jev-use doctor verifies backend resolution with one live round trip. Set a provider credential in the environment the agent runs in (TYPESAFE_API_KEY, OPENROUTER_API_KEY or AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY, auto-detected in that order), or set JEV_BACKEND=mock to run keyless with no network calls.

Step 2: Route each step before working on it

| The step is... | Route |

| ----------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------- |

| Producing new content: text, code, free-form tool args | You |

| A judgment, but the options can't be enumerated | You |

| A yes/no or "did it work?" over context you already have | jev_judge (noul) |

| Picking the next action from options you can list | jev_judge (choice) |

| Rating quality/severity/urgency on levels you can describe | jev_judge (score) |

| "Is this action safe to run?" before something risky | jev_gate |

Step 3: Batch every question about one state into one call

jev_judge takes a single state string plus a questions[] array. Latency is flat in question count, and the cost of the shared state amortizes across the batch, so 13 batched questions cost far less than 13 separate calls. Never call it once per question.

Step 4: Honor the escalation contract

Each verdict carries {id, type, answer, confidence, escalate}, plus reason and hint exactly when escalate is true. An escalated verdict is handed back to you - it is a normal verdict with a hint, never an exception:

| reason | When | What it means for you |

| ------------- | --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |

| writing | pre-call | The step must produce new text or code - structurally yours. |

| open_ended | pre-call | Not expressible as noul/choice/score; nothing to enumerate. |

| oversized | pre-call | The state exceeds the size limit - shrink it or take the questions over. |

| unsure | post-call | The answer is too flat to act on; it stays in answer as a prior. |

| unreachable | on failure| Jev could not be reached - proceed as if it did not exist. |

The two pre-call reasons come from a deterministic router, so a step that was never Jev's does not spend a request.

Examples

Example 1: One state, three questions, one call

// jev_judge input
{
  "state": "CI run #142: build ok, 214 tests passed, 0 failed; 1 test quarantined as flaky last week",
  "questions": [
    { "id": "passed", "type": "noul",   "question": "Did the run fully succeed?" },
    { "id": "next",   "type": "choice", "question": "Next action?",
      "options": { "merge": "everything green", "rerun": "looks flaky", "hold": "needs attention" } },
    { "id": "risk",   "type": "score",  "question": "How risky is merging now?",
      "levels": ["routine", "worth a look", "incident"] }
  ]
}

// result (shape exact, values illustrative)
{
  "verdicts": [
    { "id": "passed", "type": "noul",   "answer": 0.97, "confidence": 0.94, "escalate": false },
    { "id": "next",   "type": "choice", "answer": "merge", "confidence": 0.34, "escalate": true,
      "reason": "unsure",
      "hint": "Treat the answer as a prior, not a decision - reason it out yourself." },
    { "id": "risk",   "type": "score",  "answer": 0.8, "confidence": 0.81, "escalate": false,
      "legend": { "0": "routine", "1": "worth a look", "2": "incident" } }
  ],
  "escalated": true
}

Two verdicts are usable immediately. The third came back escalated with reason: "unsure", so that one question - and only that one - returns to you, with Jev's answer kept as a hint.

A score answer is the expected position on your own levels: 0.8 means "between *routine* and *worth a look*, closer to the latter", and legend maps the indices back to your words.

Example 2: Risk check before a tool call

// jev_gate input
{
  "state": "Cleaning up build output in the project checkout after a failed release build",
  "tool": "Bash",
  "input": { "command": "rm -rf ./dist" }
}

// result
{ "decision": "deny", "confidence": 0.88, "hint": "..." }

jev_gate returns allow, deny or escalate for one proposed action. allow is silence: it falls through to the harness's normal permission flow, so the gate can never grant anything - it can only deny or ask. If Jev is unreachable the gate steps aside rather than granting.

Provider verdicts remain advisory, including high-confidence results and non-escalated merge suggestions. Verify actual build/check output and apply repository gates; neither mock results nor provider answers prove execution or satisfy an exact-head maintainer review. Budget calls and redact state before provider egress. The performance figures below are historical project claims, not a guarantee for the configured backend.

Best Practices

• ✅ Do: Collect every question you have about one state and send them in a single jev_judge call.
• ✅ Do: Put the relevant facts - tool output, file excerpts, task intent - into state. Jev sees nothing else about your session.
• ✅ Do: Read escalate on every verdict before acting on answer.
• ✅ Do: Describe options and levels in your own words; a label -> meaning map sharpens a choice.
• ❌ Don't: Call jev_judge once per question.
• ❌ Don't: Route trivia. If you already know the answer, just act - a call you did not need is still a call.
• ❌ Don't: Treat an unsure answer as a decision, or treat allow from jev_gate as authorization.

Limitations

• Jev judges only what is in state; it has no view of your conversation, repository or tool history, so a thin state produces a thin judgment.
• State has a size ceiling (roughly 30k tokens). Beyond it the request escalates as oversized instead of being judged.
• Confidence is not uniform across backends: the default escalation threshold is 0.75, but through the Vercel gateway no confidence field is returned and a top-minus-runner-up margin is used instead, with a default threshold of 0.4.
• The advantage is narrower than an unconfigured comparison suggests. The project publishes its losing runs in [bench/RESULTS.md](https://github.com/shitianfang/jev-use/blob/main/bench/RESULTS.md): against enum-constrained baselines the latency lead is about 3x, not the 14x an unconstrained comparison shows. The benchmarks in [bench/examples/](https://github.com/shitianfang/jev-use/tree/main/bench/examples) are re-runnable scripts, so check the claim on y

… (nội dung đầy đủ có trong gói tải về)