Interesting, but didn't the folks from System One specifically say that Jev isn't really tuned for these kind of "Has the rest of the owl been drawn?"-style prompts?
For example:
> Non-obvious code lacks explanation of its rationale
This is so open-ended, I don't really think you're going to get reliable feedback from Jev here, at least according to my interpretation of what System One representatives were saying.
Worth saying how read-only is enforced rather than promised. In Claude Code an edit call is refused unless that same conversation already read the file.
Interesting, but didn't the folks from System One specifically say that Jev isn't really tuned for these kind of "Has the rest of the owl been drawn?"-style prompts?
For example:
> Non-obvious code lacks explanation of its rationale
This is so open-ended, I don't really think you're going to get reliable feedback from Jev here, at least according to my interpretation of what System One representatives were saying.
Looks like you only get a yes/no result and a confidence score for each file. No explanation or function level diagnostics. This is useless.
The point is you can quickly get any yes's, and then subject them to more expensive scrutiny.
Worth saying how read-only is enforced rather than promised. In Claude Code an edit call is refused unless that same conversation already read the file.
This is great!
We can now replace Kolmogorov complexity-based metrics with pure Jev-slop code quality metrics.