git:20260927.6e21b69 to git:20260927.1db8eea

3 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: jev-builder

description: Helps build applications with TypeSafe Jev by choosing decision patterns, wording and debugging typed questions, setting up API credentials, selecting SDKs or integrations, and designing fallbacks and evaluations. Use when adding Jev routing, reranking, classification, tool selection, citation or evidence checks, or context selection, when a Jev question answers wrong or with low confidence, or when finding Jev skills and example projects. Complements the official typesafe-ai skill, which carries current API detail; measuring a finished workflow belongs to the jev-evidence-eval skill.

license: MIT

---

# Build with Jev

Turn a concrete application need into a small typed decision. This skill complements the

[official TypeSafe skill](https://github.com/typesafe-ai/skills); use that for detailed API

implementation and the current [docs](https://docs.typesafe.ai/introduction) as source of truth.

If the official skill is absent, the docs and references below are sufficient to begin.

## Choose the right starting point

| Need | Read |

| --- | --- |

| First call, API key, provider choice, or authentication trouble | [Setup](references/setup.md) |

- | Routing, scoring, reranking, tool choice, escalation to an LLM, workflow design, or the official cookbook for a need | [Patterns](references/patterns.md) |

+ | Routing, scoring, tool choice, escalation to an LLM, workflow design, or the official cookbook for a need | [Patterns](references/patterns.md) |

+ | Reranking a search shortlist: batching, the question, gating, keeping search independent | [Rerank](references/rerank.md) |

+ | Screening one document against a long checklist | [Screening](references/screening.md) |

| Wording a question, or one that answers wrong or with low confidence | [Questions](references/questions.md) |

| An answer that must cite its source, or missing and conflicting evidence | [Evidence](references/evidence.md) |

| An existing skill, SDK, provider, MCP server, open model, or example project | [Resources](references/resources.md) |

| Whether independent measurements back a choice: batching, gates, wording, rerankers | [Evaluations](references/evaluations.md) |

These reference files are bundled with this skill.

## Implement a decision

1. **Define the contract.** Identify the available input, allowed outcomes, cost of a

wrong decision, and what happens when information is missing. If an exact rule solves

the problem, use code. If the output is a new paragraph or arbitrary JSON content,

use a generative model or deterministic extraction instead. The two compose well: a typed

decision picks the slot or candidate, and a generative model fills only that one slot.

2. **Connect the provider.** Follow the setup reference and the project's existing secret

handling. TypeSafe direct credentials and AI Gateway credentials are different.

Keep keys on the server; never ask the user to paste a key into the conversation.

3. **Choose a primitive.** `Choice` selects from named alternatives; include unknown or

none when appropriate. `Score` uses ordered rubric levels. `Noul` returns the probability

of yes, not a separate confidence field or a Boolean decision made for the application.

4. **Provide explicit context.** Put task data and candidate definitions in state. Write

self-contained instructions: question IDs are bookkeeping, not model-visible meaning.

Independent questions can share a request, including ones only some branches consume;

they are judged in parallel. If B requires A's answer, make a second request.

[Questions](references/questions.md) covers wording and diagnosis in detail.

5. **Use the existing SDK or framework.** Prefer official clients and follow current API

examples. Check model names, request limits and pricing in live docs; pin a supported

version for a reproducible evaluation and record the returned model.

6. **Compose in code.** Validate returned keys and allowed values. Map an answer to a

known route or candidate ID. Keep authorization and execution in application code;

a selected tool is a proposal, not permission. Handle missing, malformed, uncertain,

and service-error outcomes explicitly.

7. **Test the policy.** Start with labelled ordinary, ambiguous, and out-of-scope inputs.

Compare with the existing rule/classifier/LLM on equivalent tasks. Report errors,

latency, usage, accepted accuracy, and review coverage. Choose thresholds on development

data and check them on held-out cases; do not present a tiny example as a benchmark.

`Choice` and `Score` confidence summarizes the answer distribution. It is different from

the chosen outcome's probability and does not prove correctness. Select operating thresholds

for the actual task; constants in examples are illustrations.

For evidence work, preserve source IDs and copy exact text in code. Use a missing-evidence

outcome instead of treating silence as a negative; [Evidence](references/evidence.md) covers

the shapes and their failure modes. To measure a finished workflow, use the companion

[evaluation skill](https://github.com/laguagu/jev-skills/tree/main/skills/jev-evidence-eval).

When recommending a third-party project, verify its current primary docs, supported runtime,

license, and actual integration. State whether it was run or only inspected. For compaction

or agent hooks, explain what data they send and what behavior changes before recommending

installation. Resource discovery alone does not install tools or change agent settings.