Code review human handoff 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 human handoff slice of the code review routing pack. Intent: apply the Jev (TypeSafe System One) decision model to code review routing human handoff. Primary search language: Code review Jev human handoff. 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
Handoff is a first-class outcome for code review routing, not a failure of Jev. When the review router cannot auto-act, a human sees a packed PR description + selected hunks — not a chat transcript. We do not ask Jev to write the reviewer essay.
Hub: Use cases. Compare, when the other tool is the real job: code analyzers.
Human Handoff inputs
Humans should see what the model saw (filtered), not the warehouse dump you correctly refused to POST:
{
"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." }
}Decision signals and actions
| Signal | Typical reason enum (you name it) |
|---|---|
| CI blockers | do_not_call_jev |
| needs_security high | sec_review |
| route other / low confidence | reviewer_queue |
| Huge diff you refused to send | split_pr |
These are application outcomes next to HTTP 200, not invented TypeSafe status codes.
Send the reviewer:
- PR id + the hunks actually judged
- answers + probabilities
- CI summary
- Action taken (comment vs hold merge)
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
Do not page humans on a single Score unless your conjunction says so. Pair with confidence thresholds. 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
Write the gold label back into the offline set. That is how floors move. 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 | you are here |
| What to persist | audit trail |
| How it breaks | failure modes |
| Labeled replay | evaluation |
| Shadow → canary | production rollout |
FAQ
Is handoff a Jev failure? No. It is a first-class outcome. Abstention is “no auto action”; handoff is the queue you send that case to (glossary).
Should Jev draft the reviewer note? No. Send structured answers. Generation is the wrong job.
Where is the rest of the Code review pack? Start with Code review confidence thresholds and Code review audit trail. 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.