jev-on-a-laptop: Unofficial study: Jev-style parallel typed decisions on stock 1.5B-8B models on an Apple Silicon laptop

by rorshopping · AI Tool · ★ 25

Last updated: · Indexed by AgentSkillsHub · Auto-synced every 8h

Security audit verdict: SAFE · quality 59/100

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.

Quick Facts

Stars25
Forks1
LanguagePython
CategoryAI Tool
Quality Score59/100
Open Issues1
Last Updated2026-09-17
Created2026-09-16
Platformspython
Est. Tokens~15k

About jev-on-a-laptop

Unofficial study: Jev-style parallel typed decisions on stock 1.5B-8B models on an Apple Silicon laptop. Benchmarks, research notes, and a Hugging Face Space demo.

Compatible Skills

These tools work well together with jev-on-a-laptop for enhanced workflows:

  • vggt-mps — semantic(0.26)+complementary+shared_fw(gradio,huggingface)+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (75%)
  • jevmlx — semantic(0.50)+complementary+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (67%)
  • openjev-sglang — semantic(0.20)+complementary+shared_fw(huggingface)+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (65%)
  • NanoJev — semantic(0.20)+complementary+shared_fw(huggingface)+same_lang+similar_pop+shared_platform (65%)

More AI Tool Tools

Explore other popular ai tool tools:

View all AI Tool tools →

Popular Python Agent Tools

How this security grade is produced

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:

View on GitHub → Browse AI Tool tools