jev-engineering

# jev-engineering: coding-agent tools on Jev, measured in public

Three tools built on [TypeSafe's Jev](https://typesafe.ai/), a model that answers yes/no questions in about 0.3 seconds for $0.00002 instead of writing text. Every claim below links to a benchmark you can rerun, including the one where a built-in tool beats mine.

| Tool | What it does | Proof |
|---|---|---|
| [review-router](#review-router) | A GitHub Action that tells your AI code reviewer when it must read the whole pull request | A filename rule sent 13 real CVE fixes in Django and Express to a quick review. review-router sent all 13 to a full one |
| [jev-gate](#jev-gate-a-strict-second-lock) | A strict second lock on every command your coding agent runs | Once a session claimed it was authorized, Claude Code's auto mode let 8 of 12 dangerous test commands run. jev-gate let 0 run |
| [Use cases](usecases/) | Inbox triage, AI writing tells, Slack follow-ups, a check on messages before they send | Each with its own examples and numbers |

## review-router

Your AI reviewer either re-reads the whole pull request on every push, which is slow and expensive, or reads only the new commits and misses what hides elsewhere. The usual fix is a path rule: full review for CI, auth and migration files, quick review for the rest.

That rule has a hole. On 561 commits from FastAPI, Express and Django, it sent 13 CVE fixes to the quick path, because the vulnerable code sat in files like `validators.py` and `cache.py`. review-router reads what the diff adds and sent all 13 to a full review, while 42% of commits could still skip it.

```yaml
- uses: eugeniughelbur/jev-engineering/review-router@v1
  with:
    openrouter-api-key: ${{ secrets.OPENROUTER_API_KEY }}
```

[](review-router/)

[Setup](review-router/) · [Bench