Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h
None of the 42 rules matched — no credential harvesting, no data exfiltration, no curl-pipe-shell installer. Scanned against 42 published rules built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy, refreshed every 8 hours. Full audit →
The quality score combines nine heuristic checks of the repo and its README: completeness, clarity, specificity, examples, structure, agent readiness, step-by-step content, instruction quality and security notes. It rates how well the project explains itself to an agent, not the code.
| Stars | 10 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | AI Tool |
| License | MIT |
| Quality Score | 66/100 |
| Open Issues | 1 |
| Last Updated | 2026-09-18 |
| Created | 2026-09-18 |
| Platforms | python |
| Est. Tokens | ~15k |
Stop guessing confidence thresholds: calibrate, threshold, and drift-check typed decision models (TypeSafe Jev) against an LLM teacher.
Looking for a jevcal alternative? If you're comparing jevcal with other ai tool tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Open-source alternative to TypeSafe's Jev: a System One style model layer that gives typed, calibrated decisio
🔥🔥 Papers, open reproductions and independent evaluations behind System One models and Jev.
Jev / TypeSafe System One 中文精选列表：官方资料、SDK、爆款应用、Agent 工具、开源复现与独立评测，附中文上手指南，每日自动收录 GitHub 热门项目。
Semantic tool routing and typed System One decisions for the Pi coding agent using TypeSafe Jev
Ask your house a question, get a number back. Home Assistant integration for TypeSafe Jev: typed answers as se
Stops AI coding agents from claiming work is done without evidence. Deterministic hooks decide, TypeSafe's Jev
Explore other popular ai tool tools:
Grades come from a rule-based scan built on the SlowMist agent-security taxonomy: 42 published rules, covering credential harvesting, data exfiltration, curl | sh installers and more. It is a first-layer scan, not a manual audit — we say so rather than overstate it.
The scale of the problem is documented independently: Liu et al. (2026), in a study of 31,132 agent skills, report that 26.1% contain security vulnerabilities. Our own full-catalog census is published as a citable open dataset.
Sources & who's responsible: