Jev, specified
The long version — verified specs, what the API actually returns, how to call it, and the 13 adversarial cases we ran ourselves.
Use casesSix pages, one per kind of decision — 180 of the 209 records we hold carry one of them.
Model reference · verified 2026-09-18
Jev is TypeSafe's first model, announced on 15 September 2026 and listed on OpenRouter three days later. It does not write. You hand it program state and a typed question, and it hands back a decision with a probability attached — the thing a chat model is worst at and a program needs most.
Listed 2026-09-18 OpenRouter listing →
Compaction turned into a scoring problem: grade every tool call, drop the ones the model judges irrelevant, and skip the summarisation pass entirely. The most-liked post we have catalogued, and the idea that two later posts in this same column argue with.
The browser agent we read line by line for the resources column: Jev picks the next action from an indexed space instead of emitting free-form clicks. The most-starred build in this list, and the one with the clearest engineering write-up.
The most-watched walkthrough we found: twenty-eight minutes, published three days after launch. Watch this one if you want to see the thing being set up and run rather than explained.
The launch thread, and the largest single discussion of this model we can count. Start here for volume and for the objections raised in week one; the vendor's own announcement is in the resources column.
A designer's demo, and the most-liked post in this batch: the audience is design people, not AI people, which is worth noticing about who the model reached. The clip is the content; there is no benchmark in it.
An open-source trading OS. It is here because its own description puts the decision loop at the centre rather than a chat window; the strategy numbers are the author's, and we have not audited them.
The short version, and the one to start with if you are still deciding whether this is a category or a product. Seven minutes and no setup.
The most-read thread of the week, and it is a parody: a local Qwen model reproducing Jev's visible behaviour in twenty-five lines of Python. The discussion is better than the joke — the top comment asks for the latency and compute comparison the parody leaves out, which is exactly the measurement Jev's own case rests on.
The most-liked post in the whole list, and the one behind the browser-use repository we already cover: a flight search in seven seconds for under half a cent. Author's numbers.
A self-hosted agent workspace with eight thousand stars that added Jev as one of its decision models, announced in the README rather than in a launch post. Useful as evidence of the pattern reaching infrastructure other people already run.
A breakdown framed around code instead of chat, which is the framing that matches what the model actually does. The claim in the title is the video's, not ours.
The week's largest discussion of the decision-model stack: an Ollama-style daemon for open decision models behind TypeSafe's wire format. 587 points and 29 comments when we read it, and the argument in the comments is about whether a registry is the missing piece or another layer nobody needs.
The most-liked post here: Jev working as a plugin inside Claude, for review work. The interesting part is the shape rather than the excitement — a large model writes, Jev decides.
The Kev family: the same decide-and-act shape rebuilt on Qwen3.5 instead of the hosted API. It is also the build whose Hacker News thread trended, and the clearest sign that the pattern travels between models.
Half an hour of enthusiasm rather than instruction, useful as a temperature reading of how the launch landed with developers who build for a living.
An 0.8B Jev-compatible decision model family you can train at home, shipped with GGUF builds, adapters and a hosted playground at jeffhub.ai. It is the most-discussed item in this column — 231 comments — and most of that argument is about whether a model this small holds up on real classification.
An agent loop playing Minecraft end to end, with the decision model choosing each move and a language model out of the loop. A game is the cheapest place to watch that loop fail: every wrong call is visible within a second.
A Claude Code plugin that replaces the compaction step with a Jev call. Small, unglamorous, and among the highest-starred entries here — the pattern tends to show up in tooling before it shows up in products.
Reads Jev as a classifier, which is the closest everyday description of a typed-decision model. Worth watching for that framing alone.
A third-party rebuild of the same idea on Qwen3.5 instead of a call to the hosted model. The clearest evidence that what people are copying is the decide-act loop, not the endpoint.
The most-liked explanation in this list, and the only one whose opening move is to say what Jev does not replace. Start here if the rest of the column reads as enthusiasm.
A phone-resident assistant that reads chat threads and proposes replies. The description is the author's and is written in Chinese; we have not run it, so nothing here is a claim about how well it works.
An explainer for the question everybody asks first — why is this model interesting when it cannot write — and it answers it with the mechanism rather than the marketing. Two hundred and fifty thousand views, which makes it the video most readers will meet this model through.
A 323-point argument that OpenAI is well positioned to fast-follow this shape of model, from a blog that writes about model economics. Whether or not the prediction lands, the thread is the clearest statement of the strategic question the launch raised.
Seven hundred competitor ads broken down in forty seconds — every hook and format classified, one decision per ad. This is the largest corpus in the column so far and the clearest case for the model as a labelling engine.
Semantic conditionals, run on open models on a single 3090. This is the closest thing in the list to a drop-in replacement for an if-statement, which is the plainest statement of what the idea is for.
Demo-heavy and grounded in concrete uses rather than architecture, which makes it the better second watch after the walkthrough above.
A Show HN that answers the first question anybody asks about a model this fast: can it play something harder than Tetris? Pokémon Red, open-sourced, with the author's own caveat that Jev is not yet fast enough for Doom. The comments are mostly about frame budgets and where the loop breaks.
Not built with Jev: this is a third party announcing its own family of System One models, which is the clearest sign that the category now exists outside the company that named it. Kept in the column because the comparison is the news.
The largest company-backed project in this batch: a semantic memory layer for coding agents from the team behind Milvus, with Jev as an opt-in reranker. Worth a row because the integration is one bullet in a long feature list, which is how adoption looks when it stops being news.
The founder's own account of why the model could not have been built at OpenAI: years spent on instruction following, and the conclusion that a bounded decision is a different problem from a generated answer. Long, first-person, and the only row in this column that is the company talking about itself at length.
PostHog's reasoning Jev-style classifier: a 9B model with a diffusion drafter, trained with SFT and CISPO, MIT-licensed with weights on Hugging Face. Its title carries the claim worth testing — that adding reasoning improves a decision model, which runs against the argument that speed is the whole point.
The most-liked thing we have read from the second wave — over five thousand likes — and it is an explainer rather than a benchmark: why using a language model for a bounded decision is a hammer, and what the alternative looks like when you only need a choice.
One trade decision per Monad block, made by Jev — the most literal reading of the model in this list, a decision every few hundred milliseconds with real money behind it.
A harness build rather than a model review: how to put the decision call inside an agent loop, what to send it, and what to do with an answer that arrives as a probability. Two hundred thousand views, and the most practical of the three.
The joke build: the decision pattern wrapped around a trivial utility. Worth reading as a size reference for how little code the smallest useful instance needs.
A bot that asks Jev whether to buy or sell from a price feed and places the order on an on-chain order book every three-hundred-millisecond block. Real money on a real venue is the claim, and it is one we have not checked against the chain.
A CLI that finds code by asking what it does, built for coding agents: Jev picks the files and the source context worth reading instead of the agent grepping its way in. The README's headline is a cost claim — "Same intelligence. About 30% lower cost." — measured on their own ten-task SWE benchmark.
The only walkthrough in this column that publishes its own chapter list, and the order is the one we would suggest: routing at 2:08, then what Jev is, then the three answer types, and cost and speed only after that. Twenty minutes, and the first four are the part a developer needs.
Someone aimed a decision model at a job that belongs to a language model and said so in the title. The thread is the argument about where that line actually falls.
Doom played at roughly ten decisions a second, which the vendor works out to about seven dollars an hour of model calls. The cost of a continuous loop is the number this column keeps needing, and here the company that sells it put the arithmetic in public.
A small replica of the mechanics: parallel decisions, dynamic routing. Useful as the readable version of the architecture if you are not going to work through the paper.
A 90-minute session that treats Jev as a teaching subject rather than news: what a System One model is, why giving up token generation changes what a model can be used for, and where it sits in a pipeline. The longest explainer we track, and the one that assumes no background.
An independent reconstruction of the architecture. Read it next to the vendor's quickstart, because the two disagree in places worth knowing about.
A driving-simulation agent rebuilt in an afternoon, with the decision model steering. 'Under an hour' is a claim about the integration rather than the task, and the author is explicit that it took one sitting.
Not a Jev project: a large multi-provider desktop assistant that added a Jev / System One (inline) plugin for classification, routing, selection, verification and scoring. It is the shape adoption takes once a model stops being news — one entry in a plugin list, and the repo carries a jev topic tag.
Runs seven open Jev-style models against a public benchmark rather than explaining the API again, which makes it the most useful of the second wave. Sponsored by Dell for the compute and the sponsorship is stated in the description; the models named there are the ones we list in the builds column.
Red Hat's AI Safety team benchmarked nine guardrail candidates across four methodologies — CPU-scale pre-trained classifiers, LLM-as-a-judge and decision models — to ask whether Jev-style models earn their place for risk detection. It is the first enterprise-scale comparison we have seen on this question, and its answer leans toward the cheap old thing rather than either vendor's story.
A curated thread of Jev projects from X: the same instinct as this column, by somebody reading the same timeline. Overlaps our builds list and belongs beside it.
A PostgreSQL extension that answers plain-language questions about your tables: Jev does the choosing, the database does the work. It puts the decision model inside the database rather than beside it, which is the same architectural bet Cloudflare made by putting Jev behind env.AI.run.
Framed as a question — will Jev replace LLMs — which is the debate rather than the specification. Worth knowing that the description spends more of its lines on the channel's bootcamp than on the model; if you want the answer types, the shorter explainers in this column get there faster.
The Hacker News thread for JevBench, the community benchmark that made comparison between these models possible. The most interesting comment quotes the vendor's own reasoning for not publishing benchmarks — which is a fair thing to have next to a benchmark somebody else wrote.
Real-time virtual try-on for a fashion haul: a decision per frame rather than per document, which is the latency end of what these models are for. The demo is a studio experiment, not a product, and the author says so.
A browser skill that splits the loop in two: Jev owns clicking, toggling, scrolling and navigation, while Codex keeps text input, visual judgment and the final verification. The README claims 5–10x faster browser operations in the author's own product workflows at EZCollegeApp.
A twenty-two minute explainer whose chapter list is a syllabus: what Jev is, how it differs, speed and price, then state, questions and answers, the three answer types, the playground, and finally requests. It is the one to send somebody who has never heard of a System One model.
A short argument with code: wrap any LLM — vision models included — in a single function that returns a decision rather than text. 135 points and 12 comments, and a useful counterweight to the framework-shaped projects in the builds column, because it shows how little scaffolding the idea actually needs.
Five hundred emails classified in seconds for a few cents, which is the claim; the number is the author's and we have not run it. The interesting part is the shape — bulk triage where per-item cost decides whether it is viable at all.
Computer use for about $0.0002 a step, on macOS: OCR the screen, classify the next action with TypeSafe, click. Python 3.12 with an MIT licence and a CI badge, and the price per step is in the repository description rather than buried in a table. We have not run it.
In Spanish, thirty-one minutes, and it explains the category before the API: what a System One model is and why the decision stays in your code. Worth listing for the half of the audience that does not read English explainers — the framing is the same, the language is not.
A prior publication arguing the pattern predates this release, with the paper and dataset linked in the thread. Useful as the before-picture when the naming conversation comes up.
OpenRouter's own announcement of the beta listing — the post that made the model reachable without a waitlist, and the reason the listing page this site links to exists at all.
File this one under roadmap, which is where Reticle puts Jev: the README says plainly that nothing ships against it yet. The case is still worth reading, because it is the only project here that names the decisions it would route — is this page settled, is this finding worth chasing — and then says why a 70–500ms typed answer beats an LLM there.
The longest of the explainers at forty-two minutes, in Italian, and the only one that opens by arguing about the category rather than the model: not an LLM, not a chatbot, a system built to return decisions. Its own framing, not ours.
A curation of demos, tools and integrations, submitted as a repository and argued about in the comments. Our own X column is the same idea with a person reading each row first; this is the version that scales by not reading them, and the comments show where that shows.
One person running fifteen hundred of his own emails through the model and reporting that it works well. A personal inbox is a fair place to start and also the reason the post carries no accuracy figure: the only labels in it are his own.
A research lab's answer to the question this whole column circles: can an ordinary open LLM produce typed decisions without generating tokens? Nokia's team ships calibration heads for five Qwen3 sizes and reports order-flip falling from 0.230 to 0.073 and calibration error from 0.240 to 0.095 with no labels. The numbers are theirs, on their dataset.
A browser agent driving an indexed action space. We read this repository line by line for the resources column; the thread is where its author answers questions about it.
Seven hundred leads and the outreach message written for each one, scored in forty seconds for nine cents, with mismatches between message and lead flagged. Judging a written sentence against an intent is the errand; the accuracy claim is the author's and there is no holdout in the post.
The most carefully reported Jev result in this list, including its own negative: an opt-in reranker takes R@1 from 0.41 to 0.62 on a private 300-query store at about $0.0004 a recall, the margin held in 20 of 20 seeds — and three graded tests still did not beat the free local cross-encoder. Off by default.
A separate System One model, aimed at computer use rather than typed decisions. The clearest sign that the name is turning into a category rather than a product.
The strongest version of the hype, posted as text. Read it for how the analogy is argued; the post itself offers no number, and none of the claims in it are ours.
The open substitute, published with its own comparison against the model it substitutes: 72.0% macro on a 49-task suite against TypeSafe's 96.6%, and 9.00 kills against 5.62 in ViZDoom — a clear loss on accuracy and a win on the real-time loop. Its GitHub description says sub-15ms and its README headline says sub-25ms; both numbers are the publisher's.
PrivateMode's write-up of getting Jev-like behaviour out of a standard open model by crafting the prompt so the first output token is the answer: one forward pass, then a benchmark against both Jev and Laya. One of very few head-to-head measurements in this column that was not produced by a vendor.
The joke that travelled furthest in this batch: years of bookmarked posts as a workload for a fast decision model. The demo is the point.
The clearest design pattern in the batch, and the author states it in one line: Jev decides, code computes. Fourteen typed questions in a single call decide what the text box should become, while dates, amounts and units are parsed by deterministic code.
The sceptic's post, and the most valuable one in this topic's discussion: four hundred rolls of a fair die, and the model's probabilities never moved off the first face. It is a one-experiment argument, so read it as a sharp case rather than a verdict — and note that it lands on the same failure the model's own card warns about.
The fullest tutorial in this batch — what it is, how to build with it, what it unlocks. Long, and the nearest thing to the official walkthrough that was never published.
A local-first implementation of the same interface: unstructured state in, typed decisions with probabilities out, no tokens generated, and an HTTP surface written to match TypeSafe's so an existing client can be repointed at your own machine. The README is explicit that it implements the idea rather than reproducing the weights.
An explainer for the training method behind this class of model, with the objection attached: the top comment points out that the piece never defines the acronym in its own title. Useful as a pointer to the technique, not as the reference for it.
A widely shared explainer whose first move is to say the key difference is not speed. Short, and the numbers inside it are the vendor's, as they are everywhere else in this column.
Read the README for the pipeline rather than the dashboard: a Null risk matrix, then Choice and Score file profiles, evidence selection, mechanism classification, severity, and a conditional Choice that routes which reviewer sees it. Orchestration stays in code and Jev only answers the bounded judgements — which is the pattern to copy.
A measured attack on the calibration claim, with the whole experiment series run for under $4. The author's description of the architecture — a pre-trained transformer with a classifier bolted on the end — is the clearest short explanation of what Jev is that we have read from outside TypeSafe, whether or not the conclusion holds.
The most consequential post in this batch, and not because of the numbers: a framework company ran the comparison everyone else has been arguing about from intuitions. They tested Jev against LLM judges on accuracy, repeatability, latency and cost, and published the method rather than the conclusion.
The one repository in this queue with no published description, and the one that states its design constraint most plainly: text goes in and screenshots do not, a local policy gate blocks the sensitive actions, and Codex does the reading and clicking. The README is in Chinese.
Simon Willison's note on the launch, and the thread underneath is about what a closed decision model means for bias and audit: a probability you cannot interrogate is still a judgement. Worth reading for the questions rather than the answers.
Super Mario Bros played by the model, which is the earliest demo in this batch and the one that convinced a lot of people the latency claim was real. A game loop is the honest test of whether the round trip fits.
The Windows build of the chat assistant that reads a conversation off the screen with local OCR, asks Jev what the other person means, and offers three replies. The decision kernel is shared with the Android version already on this wall, which is why this row is short.
A research group handed Jev a view of a cluster and let its fast judgments choose where to investigate and which evidence supported a diagnosis, then published all 105 diagnoses including the ones that went wrong. Negative results with the failure cases printed are rare in this topic, and worth more than another demo.
Every entry on this page is in one of the columns, with the full list and its filters: Built with Jev (28) · Seen on X (101) · Videos (16) · Threads and write-ups (64)
The 10 use cases cover 180 of the 209 records in this topic; the rest are announcements and explainers, so they are in no use case and in no chip. A chip's number counts every record in the topic — the wall on this page is a sample of it, so switching a chip on shows the matching cards from these 88, and the complete list behind each use case is its own page, linked from Use cases.
Jev is a model from TypeSafe AI, announced on 2026-09-15. Instead of generating text it takes program state in and returns typed decisions out — a yes/no with a probability, a choice from a set you define, or a score on a scale you define. TypeSafe calls this class a System One model.
Yes. The catalogue serves `typesafe/jev-1.13` — 32,000 context, $0.042 per million input tokens, output free — and the model page is at https://openrouter.ai/typesafe/jev-1.13. One caveat worth knowing: it answers on its own endpoint but is not returned by the `/api/v1/models` list, so tools that build off that list will not see it.
No. It gives up string generation entirely — that is the trade the vendor made for speed and for never producing a type error. If you need prose, code or a chat answer, Jev is the wrong tool; it is built to be called by code that already knows what it is going to do with the answer.
TypeSafe’s term for a model trained to make fast, structured decisions rather than to produce human-pleasing text. The vendor’s framing is a function call with frontier intelligence behind it: unstructured state in, typed probabilistic decisions out. The training method is named RLCD — Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Decisions.
They are the three question types. Noul is the boolean form — you name the true and false criteria and get back a probability between 0 and 1. Choice asks the model to pick one option from a set you define. Score asks it to place the answer on an ordered scale you define. Every answer comes with a probability and a confidence.
$0.042 per million input tokens on OpenRouter — the vendor quotes the same as $42 per billion — and output is free. Read the input figure as the whole bill: the model returns a decision, not a body of text, so there is no large completion to pay for.
The vendor claims 70 ms to 500 ms end to end, against 3 to 329 seconds for frontier LLMs, and describes that as 40× to 200× faster on System One shaped queries. That is the maker’s measurement, run from their own machines; we have not reproduced it.
Output is free and input is $0.042 per million tokens, which is close to free in practice — a million decisions costs about four cents of input. It is not a free-preview model though: this is the listed price, not a temporary window like the Alpha-line stealth releases had.
Yes — it is listed in the Cloudflare Workers AI catalogue as the third-party model `typesafe/jev`, with a code sample that calls it through `env.AI.run` and passes state plus a questions object. Same model, different front door from OpenRouter.
No. All four share three letters and nothing else. Those other meanings have far more search volume than the model does — which is exactly why this page names them instead of quietly counting their traffic as ours.
It is being discussed that way on X, and a model that returns calibrated probabilities in under a second is a plausible fit for decision points in a trading loop. But we could not find a single published, checkable result — and nobody publishes a verified returns claim. Treat it as a rumour about a three-day-old model. This page will say so until there is something to link to.
Jev arrived with an announcement, a company and a founder — unlike the Alpha line, which shows up anonymous and free. We track both. Leave an email and we will send one note when the next one appears, with the specs read from the catalogue.
One email per model. No newsletter, no forwarding, unsubscribe in one click.
The long version — verified specs, what the API actually returns, how to call it, and the 13 adversarial cases we ran ourselves.
15 LLMs side by side on price, context and fit — the tools Jev is meant to be called instead of, not alongside.
Every model this site tracks, with the price and window read from the public catalogue.
The other way a new model shows up on OpenRouter: anonymous, free, and gone in days. Jev did not arrive that way, and the difference matters.
Open Jev on OpenRouter → Cloudflare model card How people actually use it Full model directory