Routing code reviews with Jev: pick a review mode per diff and gate on confidence
A video walkthrough uses one small Jev-style call before review to pick security, tests, quick look or human, sending anything under 0.80 confidence to a person.
Your AI reviews a typo fix and an auth change the same way. That's the bug. Most setups throw every diff at the same review. A full deep review on a README typo. The same quick pass on a PR that touches secrets. The fix: before any review runs, make one small call that decides how to review. What goes in: diff size paths touched test delta number of pushes What comes out is one choice from a list you define: security tests quick look deep review ask a human Plus a confidence score. The threshold is the part that matters. In the video: auth + secrets change → security, 0.94 README typo → quick look, 0.97 billing refactor with zero test changes → the top answer was only 0.37, so it goes to a human The model doesn't get to guess on the risky stuff. Below 0.80, a person decides. How to set it up: 1. Send a summary of the diff, not the whole diff. Small input, fast answer. 2. Keep the options fixed. A pick from 5 labels, not an essay. 3. Use a small fast model. Haiku can handle it, and decision models like Jev from TypeSafe are built for exactly this kind of call (still on a waitlist). 4. Pick a threshold and send everything below it to a human. 5. Log every call with its verdict. After a week you'll see where the router gets it wrong. Run it in CI before review, and the expensive review only happens where it's needed. One call per diff. The verdict moves with it.
This post quotes another post: x.com/0x_rody/status/2112558839589417355