What needs the closest review in this change?
Token validation · retry behavior · rollback plan
Follow practical guides and open-source walkthroughs with local sample data.
Release change: the login endpoint adds token checks and changes its retry behavior.
Token validation · retry behavior · rollback plan
Code checks confidence, then routes automatically or sends the case for human review.
Illustrative workflow only, not a live call or model evaluation. Application code decides what action to take.
Example: Is this ticket about billing, shipping, or a technical issue?
Example: Does this request need human review?
Example: Rate ticket urgency as low, medium, or high.
These types constrain the shape of an answer. You still need representative examples to evaluate judgment quality and code to enforce review and action boundaries.
For the model definition and current capability boundaries, refer to TypeSafe AI’s primary sources: Official introduction · Confidence guide
Start with a repeated decision and a clearly bounded answer. Review the examples and sources before deciding whether it fits your workflow.
Understand its inputs, question types, probabilities, and where it fits alongside language models.
Read the five-question guide →Use a fictional release change to follow state, model, questions, and human fallback.
Read the first-call guide →Browse open-source examples and exercises for ticket routing, data classification, and agent safeguards.
Browse all examples →No login required. Files are processed locally in your browser. Each tool has downloadable teaching inputs and expected reports, without a model call.
Find 5 issues in 7 sample records, then check the repaired fixture.
Open the CSV checker →Read the worked exampleMatch stable IDs to find changed, missing and added records.
Open the comparison tool →Learn how to interpret the differencesRoute 5 results into 3 reviews and 2 spot checks, retaining input columns.
Open the review queue →Read threshold and handoff steps
Separate category, evidence sufficiency and impact for fictional product reports, then combine the answers in code. Includes a specification and edge cases.

Compare automatic coverage and accepted errors across candidate cutoffs, inspect high-confidence mistakes and reserve a validation set. Includes local calculation code.

Replace vague severity labels with observable anchors. Separate impact and evidence, retain fractional scores and human expectations, and produce reviewable priorities.

Configure bounded SDK retries, distinguish authentication, timeout and response validation errors, retain request IDs and persist task states for refresh and duplicate submissions.

Fix CSV types, collect rejected row locations and reasons with store_rejects, export usable data and errors separately, and reconcile counts with a malformed fixture.

Export candidate PDF tables as CSV and HTML, retain source hashes and table indices, and inspect merged cells, repeated headers and numeric columns using a checklist.

Use interrupt and Command for approval, rejection and resumption. Distinguish thread IDs, in-memory checkpoints and durable storage, with an audit-record checklist.

Use __expected exact assertions and a local JavaScript provider to check saved outputs. An intentional failure verifies reporting without an LLM judge. Includes a complete fixture archive.

Collect automatic failures with Error Trigger, classify credentials, rate limits and validation, and retain execution IDs and completed steps. Includes an error-register CSV.

Record actions and DOM snapshots on a local fixture, inspect locators and waits in trace.zip, and write a minimal reproduction. Includes a local-page exercise archive.
When software needs to classify, choose a route, score, or decide whether review is needed, Jev can return a decision in a predefined type with probabilities.
Use a generative model for replies, explanations, code, or long-form text. A workflow can also use one to write while Jev handles bounded decisions inside it.
Keep arithmetic, permissions, and sending decisions in ordinary code and business rules. Route low-confidence results to people according to your workflow.
Jev handles a specific kind of judgment rather than replacing every AI tool. Choose based on whether the next step needs a bounded answer or newly generated content.
Jev is designed for structured decisions inside software and returns results in predefined types. Generative models remain a better fit for writing, conversation, and long explanations.
No. A well-formed result is not necessarily semantically correct. Evaluate on representative examples and keep human review for uncertain or consequential cases.
No. This site provides explanations, local examples, and workflow diagrams. Live API access requires authorization from TypeSafe AI.
Start with the five-question introduction, then follow the fictional release-change walkthrough. Browse examples by ticket routing, agent safeguards, or data classification next. Open the beginner guide →