Benchmarks & research

jev-broadcast-lab

@4anti2JavaScriptupdated 2026-09-17runnable

Operator lab for TypeSafe Jev. Chess Arena, closed-schema booths, Stockfish HUD for review only.

4anti/jev-broadcast-lab

Where it calls Jev

UPSTREAM = os.environ.get("TYPESAFE_UPSTREAM", "https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone")

server.py:50

The link points at the commit we read, so the line number still holds.

What it asks Jev

These question sets are lifted from this project's source exactly as written.

from web/home.js:37

  1. whatchoice

    What is this page describing?

    • broadcast_labA lab for closed-schema Jev calls
    • chess_engineA chess engine like Stockfish
    • chatbotA chat model that writes prose
    • policy_gateA safety policy enforcer
    • chess_matchA live chess match

Run it on your own text

The code
import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    what: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'What is this page describing?',
      criteria: { broadcast_lab: 'A lab for closed-schema Jev calls', chess_engine: 'A chess engine like Stockfish', chatbot: 'A chat model that writes prose', policy_gate: 'A safety policy enforcer', chess_match: 'A live chess match' } },
  },
});

from web/lab/call/call.js:26

  1. fnchoice

    Which function should run?

    • search_ticketsLook up tickets
    • create_refundIssue a refund
    • page_oncallPage a human
    • noneNo tool
  2. reasonchoice

    If refunding, which reason enum? Use none if not a refund.

    • duplicate_chargeCharged twice
    • service_creditGoodwill credit
    • chargeback_avoidDefensive refund
    • noneNot a refund

Run it on your own text

The code
import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    fn: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'Which function should run?',
      criteria: { search_tickets: 'Look up tickets', create_refund: 'Issue a refund', page_oncall: 'Page a human', none: 'No tool' } },
    reason: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'If refunding, which reason enum? Use none if not a refund.',
      criteria: { duplicate_charge: 'Charged twice', service_credit: 'Goodwill credit', chargeback_avoid: 'Defensive refund', none: 'Not a refund' } },
  },
});

from web/lab/cheat/cheat.js:188

  1. verdictchoice

    Classify the act relative to this couple's setup. Use community_rule only if the setup named a religious or family boundary. Use depends_on_couple if exclusive people would split and no rule was named. Do not moralize past the labels.

    • not_cheatingNo extra-pair betrayal relative to this setup
    • microSmall extra-pair attention or concealment, short of an affair
    • emotional_affairSecret emotional primary bond with someone else
    • sexual_affairSexual or clearly sexual-digital contact that breaks exclusivity
    • depends_on_coupleReasonable exclusive couples would split on this
    • community_ruleA breach of a named religious, family, or subculture rule more than of sex-as-such
  2. secrecytrue/false

    Concealment from the partner (or from the named family rule-holders) is doing real work in this case.

  3. harmscore

    Typical trust harm if this stays hidden, for this setup. Not a legal finding.

    • 0None
    • 1Sting
    • 2Break
    • 3Blow-up

Run it on your own text

The code
import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    verdict: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'Classify the act relative to this couple\'s setup. Use community_rule only if the setup named a religious or family boundary. Use depends_on_couple if exclusive people would split and no rule was named. Do not moralize past the labels.',
      criteria: { not_cheating: 'No extra-pair betrayal relative to this setup', micro: 'Small extra-pair attention or concealment, short of an affair', emotional_affair: 'Secret emotional primary bond with someone else', sexual_affair: 'Sexual or clearly sexual-digital contact that breaks exclusivity', depends_on_couple: 'Reasonable exclusive couples would split on this', community_rule: 'A breach of a named religious, family, or subculture rule more than of sex-as-such' } },
    secrecy: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'Concealment from the partner (or from the named family rule-holders) is doing real work in this case.' },
    harm: { type: 'score', instructions: 'Typical trust harm if this stays hidden, for this setup. Not a legal finding.',
      criteria: ['None', 'Sting', 'Break', 'Blow-up'] },
  },
});

from web/lab/debate/debate.js:124

  1. targetchoice

    What did the counter aim at?

    • claimThe stated claim
    • premiseA supporting reason
    • personThe speaker
    • motiveWhy they might say it
    • definitionThe meaning of a word
    • side_issueA different topic
    • evidenceThe data or source
  2. qualityscore

    How well does the counter actually answer the original claim?

    • 0Miss
    • 1Glance
    • 2Partial
    • 3Meets it
  3. on_pointtrue/false

    The counter addresses the original claim rather than the speaker or a side issue.

Run it on your own text

The code
import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const { answers } = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions: {
    target: { type: 'choice', instructions: 'What did the counter aim at?',
      criteria: { claim: 'The stated claim', premise: 'A supporting reason', person: 'The speaker', motive: 'Why they might say it', definition: 'The meaning of a word', side_issue: 'A different topic', evidence: 'The data or source' } },
    quality: { type: 'score', instructions: 'How well does the counter actually answer the original claim?',
      criteria: ['Miss', 'Glance', 'Partial', 'Meets it'] },
    on_point: { type: 'boolean', instructions: 'The counter addresses the original claim rather than the speaker or a side issue.' },
  },
});

Other projects in this category