by yzfly · Agent Tool · ★ 30
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 | 30 |
| Forks | 4 |
| Language | Python |
| Category | Agent Tool |
| Quality Score | 63/100 |
| Open Issues | 1 |
| Last Updated | 2026-09-21 |
| Created | 2026-09-20 |
| Platforms | python |
| Est. Tokens | ~10k |
离线可用的本地类型化决策：4 核 CPU 单题 15.6ms。Local & offline Jev / System One inference on CPU — ONNX + INT8, no torch at runtime. 支持 laya / kev / PlayJev
These tools work well together with edgejev for enhanced workflows:
Looking for a edgejev alternative? If you're comparing edgejev with other agent tool tools, these 6 projects are the closest alternatives on Agent Skills Hub — ranked by topic overlap, star count, and community traction.
Local proxy that learns your app's typed LLM decisions and answers them with a Laya head. Jev and OpenAI compa
Typed-decision models (noul / choice / score) trained by a self-improving loop of AI agents — checkpoints, the
Non-autoregressive decision engine on ModernBERT (151M) with calibrated uncertainty (RLCD), TypeSafe AI Jev be
🔥🔥 Papers, open reproductions and independent evaluations behind System One models and Jev.
InferrLM - On-device AI for iOS & Android
Curated Jev resources and runnable examples for typed AI decisions.
Explore other popular agent 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: