Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Jev + Opus 5.5, side by side. same agent. same task. same 60 decisions. Opus-only: $2.24 - 3m 37s Jev + Opus: $0.43 - 1m 15s the difference is who makes the small calls: which tool runs next - Jev is this output good enough - Jev is the... show more

Mahax

10,530 subscribers

19,565 views • 16 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

6 Comments

Iron Giant16 days ago

Smart routing done right

rewind16 days ago

actually huge

Madeactual16 days ago

Leave the refund rewrite on Opus. Which tool runs next, is the output good enough, and is the goal met are closed questions, so they belong on Jev with a confidence floor. I only auto-route when the top option clears that floor. Anything under it goes back to the big model instead of guessing.

PrimeLine16 days ago

i ran jev against haiku on sorting my own knowledge notes earlier this month, and across all of them haiku was ahead, about ninety eight right in a hundred against about ninety one. when i only kept the six in ten notes jev was surest about, it got every one of those right, and haiku did about as well on its own six in ten. so before sending fifty seven of sixty calls to jev, log its confidence on each one and have opus answer a sample of the same calls. if the misses sit in the low confidence ones, that's your line for when opus steps in. i wrote up the numbers here

Issa16 days ago

What's the one problem you're seeing?

magsimich16 days ago

That cost difference really adds up

Related Videos

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Jev + Opus 5.5 is the most underrated setup in AI right now, and i don't get why nobody's talking about it. I stopped letting Opus make every small decision in my agents. Jev makes them now. My Opus bill dropped ~500% on the same tasks, same results. Here's what Jev handles: - which files and notes to load before Opus sees anything - which effort level each task actually needs - what to do when a tool fails - which tests to run, and when to stop Opus only gets called for the hard reasoning. Every decision is a typed result the host checks before it runs. The exact prompt to set this up in your workflow is below.

Anatoli Kopadze

76,655 views • 17 days ago

Do the math on 1,000 coding tasks a month. Opus 5.5 doing everything: $6,420 Jev + Opus 5.5: $2,000 That's $4,420 a month back. $53,040 a year. Same tasks. Same model writing the code. The only difference is who makes the small decisions. Full build below. Bookmark this.

Do the math on 1,000 coding tasks a month. Opus 5.5 doing everything: $6,420 Jev + Opus 5.5: $2,000 That's $4,420 a month back. $53,040 a year. Same tasks. Same model writing the code. The only difference is who makes the small decisions. Full build below. Bookmark this.

CyrilXBT

31,446 views • 3 days ago

Opus 5.5 + Jev = crack. This is quite literally the most powerful AI trading bot setup you could run. My new high-frequency Opus 5.5 + Jev trading bot (full guide):

Opus 5.5 + Jev = crack. This is quite literally the most powerful AI trading bot setup you could run. My new high-frequency Opus 5.5 + Jev trading bot (full guide):

Miles Deutscher

90,936 views • 15 days ago

i just plugged jevrouter into claude code and it's actually insane 💀 same bug. same repo. same prompt. left is opus 5.5 doing everything right is claude code on jev, switching models mid task opus plans it. deepseek writes it. sol takes the hard fix. glm cleans up watch the bill at the bottom opus: 62s, $0.32 jev: 44s, $0.19 both passed all 9 tests i'm never going back

i just plugged jevrouter into claude code and it's actually insane 💀 same bug. same repo. same prompt. left is opus 5.5 doing everything right is claude code on jev, switching models mid task opus plans it. deepseek writes it. sol takes the hard fix. glm cleans up watch the bill at the bottom opus: 62s, $0.32 jev: 44s, $0.19 both passed all 9 tests i'm never going back

Vadim

12,251 views • 16 days ago

JEV + Opus 5.5 is insane for live design... I built a live site redesigner with JEV + Opus 5.5 Paste any link → press Start → scroll, and Jev + Opus 5.5 rebuild every section of the site in front of you Full production ship in 20 seconds: 1. IntersectionObserver fires when a section is 30%+ in the viewport 2. Jev returns one typed decision in ~0.1s: { layout, copy, drop, type, palette, p } 3. Opus 5.5 writes the component (TSX) + a CSS patch for the chosen style 4. The new section wipes in with clip-path, the old one blurs out 5. Next section enters the queue, one at a time, no race conditions Output: 8 sections of a 2015 hosting site rebuilt in ~20s, streamed line by line in the terminal 3 styles, one renderer: orthographic globe + lambert shading → ASCII / 2-color halftone / ink stipple Scroll yourself and it redesigns whatever you land on Jev decides fast, Opus designs it

JEV + Opus 5.5 is insane for live design... I built a live site redesigner with JEV + Opus 5.5 Paste any link → press Start → scroll, and Jev + Opus 5.5 rebuild every section of the site in front of you Full production ship in 20 seconds: 1. IntersectionObserver fires when a section is 30%+ in the viewport 2. Jev returns one typed decision in ~0.1s: { layout, copy, drop, type, palette, p } 3. Opus 5.5 writes the component (TSX) + a CSS patch for the chosen style 4. The new section wipes in with clip-path, the old one blurs out 5. Next section enters the queue, one at a time, no race conditions Output: 8 sections of a 2015 hosting site rebuilt in ~20s, streamed line by line in the terminal 3 styles, one renderer: orthographic globe + lambert shading → ASCII / 2-color halftone / ink stipple Scroll yourself and it redesigns whatever you land on Jev decides fast, Opus designs it

Movez

107,322 views • 20 days ago

Jev + Claude Opus 5.5 is a f*cking goldmine... i can't understand why everyone isn't wiring this up yet the forks alone drop from about $110 a day to $4 once Jev takes them over. right now it's the best way i know to run Opus where Jev steps in: -> ranks which project notes matter before the context loads -> passes the easy steps to a faster worker -> chooses a recovery path when a tool fails, so nothing retries blind -> runs the targeted checks before the full test suite Opus does the hard reasoning. Jev chooses between options the harness already built and checked every choice comes back with a probability, so the harness can set a confidence floor and push anything below it back up to Opus Jev engineering fits in one line: the expensive model reasons, the cheap one decides $106 a day saved on the same work ends up in your performance review start with the paper, then the full Jev guide below

Jev + Claude Opus 5.5 is a f*cking goldmine... i can't understand why everyone isn't wiring this up yet the forks alone drop from about $110 a day to $4 once Jev takes them over. right now it's the best way i know to run Opus where Jev steps in: -> ranks which project notes matter before the context loads -> passes the easy steps to a faster worker -> chooses a recovery path when a tool fails, so nothing retries blind -> runs the targeted checks before the full test suite Opus does the hard reasoning. Jev chooses between options the harness already built and checked every choice comes back with a probability, so the harness can set a confidence floor and push anything below it back up to Opus Jev engineering fits in one line: the expensive model reasons, the cheap one decides $106 a day saved on the same work ends up in your performance review start with the paper, then the full Jev guide below

Mr. Buzzoni

19,994 views • 7 days ago

Jev + Claude Opus 5.5... i can't understand why everyone isn't wiring this up yet the forks alone drop from about $110 a day to $4 once jev takes them over. right now it's the best way i know to run opus what jev handles: -> scores which project notes matter before the context even loads -> hands the easy steps to a faster worker -> picks a recovery path when a tool fails, so nothing retries blind -> runs the focused checks before the full test suite opus does the hard reasoning. jev chooses from options the harness already prepared and validated that's jev engineering in one line: the expensive model thinks, the cheap one decides $106 a day back on the same work is a number your manager remembers read the paper, then the full jev guide below

Jev + Claude Opus 5.5... i can't understand why everyone isn't wiring this up yet the forks alone drop from about $110 a day to $4 once jev takes them over. right now it's the best way i know to run opus what jev handles: -> scores which project notes matter before the context even loads -> hands the easy steps to a faster worker -> picks a recovery path when a tool fails, so nothing retries blind -> runs the focused checks before the full test suite opus does the hard reasoning. jev chooses from options the harness already prepared and validated that's jev engineering in one line: the expensive model thinks, the cheap one decides $106 a day back on the same work is a number your manager remembers read the paper, then the full jev guide below

Annatar.md

130,899 views • 14 days ago

send this prompt to claude opus 5.5 it ends the babysitting no more typing "continue". no more picking effort. no more toggling MCP tools. no more "should I compact?". no more allow? allow? allow? jev answers each one in ~100ms. $0.042 per million input tokens. output free. opus does the work. jev makes the calls. your code keeps the deny list. you're welcome:

send this prompt to claude opus 5.5 it ends the babysitting no more typing "continue". no more picking effort. no more toggling MCP tools. no more "should I compact?". no more allow? allow? allow? jev answers each one in ~100ms. $0.042 per million input tokens. output free. opus does the work. jev makes the calls. your code keeps the deny list. you're welcome:

Carnage

41,939 views • 21 days ago

jev + opus 5.5 is one of those setups that makes agent architecture feel weirdly overcomplicated in hindsight. the useful split isn’t “small model vs big model.” it’s deciding which calls actually need generation at all. → jev routes the next worker → scores which context is worth keeping → catches repeated actions before they burn the run → gates risky tool calls and sends uncertainty to review opus still owns the expensive part: planning, writing, coding, synthesis. jev sits around it as the decision layer. that matters because a typical loop can have 11 decision points but only 2 real generation calls. once those are separated, latency and cost stop scaling with every tiny fork in the workflow.

jev + opus 5.5 is one of those setups that makes agent architecture feel weirdly overcomplicated in hindsight. the useful split isn’t “small model vs big model.” it’s deciding which calls actually need generation at all. → jev routes the next worker → scores which context is worth keeping → catches repeated actions before they burn the run → gates risky tool calls and sends uncertainty to review opus still owns the expensive part: planning, writing, coding, synthesis. jev sits around it as the decision layer. that matters because a typical loop can have 11 decision points but only 2 real generation calls. once those are separated, latency and cost stop scaling with every tiny fork in the workflow.

Gipp 🦅

51,452 views • 18 days ago

THIS IS ACTUAL F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 together, each one doing only the job it's best at. Opus-level judgment on every big call, without paying Opus rates for every routine turn. You just launch Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's the split: → Sonnet 5.5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big calls → you stop spending Opus on work that doesn't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error shows up twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to JEV in milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5.5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the whole transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5.5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, you'll use this every single day.

THIS IS ACTUAL F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 together, each one doing only the job it's best at. Opus-level judgment on every big call, without paying Opus rates for every routine turn. You just launch Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's the split: → Sonnet 5.5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big calls → you stop spending Opus on work that doesn't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error shows up twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to JEV in milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5.5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the whole transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5.5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, you'll use this every single day.

delost

294,285 views • 1 day ago

Jev is WILD for SEO audit 🤯 in 45.1 seconds it read all 586 pages on my site and rebuilt the internal link map. 584 links placed, 139 pages it refused to link because nothing honestly fit. total cost $0.21. Claude Opus 5, same 586 pages, same clock, got through 21 of them and spent $1.43. per page that is ~190x cheaper. the full Opus pass would have run $43. internal linking is the perfect Jev job. it is not writing, it is 8,790 yes/no calls: does this page have a real reason to link to that one, and is there anchor text already sitting in the copy. that is a classification problem, and we have been paying frontier prices to do it one page at a time. what you are watching: left column is Jev, right is Opus, same queue, same rubric. the run stops the moment Jev finishes so Opus stops burning tokens. coming soon to Distribb + connector + gpt plugin

Jev is WILD for SEO audit 🤯 in 45.1 seconds it read all 586 pages on my site and rebuilt the internal link map. 584 links placed, 139 pages it refused to link because nothing honestly fit. total cost $0.21. Claude Opus 5, same 586 pages, same clock, got through 21 of them and spent $1.43. per page that is ~190x cheaper. the full Opus pass would have run $43. internal linking is the perfect Jev job. it is not writing, it is 8,790 yes/no calls: does this page have a real reason to link to that one, and is there anchor text already sitting in the copy. that is a classification problem, and we have been paying frontier prices to do it one page at a time. what you are watching: left column is Jev, right is Opus, same queue, same rubric. the run stops the moment Jev finishes so Opus stops burning tokens. coming soon to Distribb + connector + gpt plugin

borja

846,055 views • 26 days ago

THIS IS PURE F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 at the same time, each one doing only what it's best at. Better results and way fewer tokens, because every task lands on the right model. You just start Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's how it splits: → Sonnet 5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big decisions → you stop burning Opus context on tasks that don't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error hits twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to JEV in milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the full transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, it'll come in handy.

THIS IS PURE F*CKING GOLD Anthropic just shared one of the best tricks for Claude Code. The idea: run Sonnet, Haiku and Opus 5.5 at the same time, each one doing only what it's best at. Better results and way fewer tokens, because every task lands on the right model. You just start Claude Code like this: claude --model sonnet --advisor opus here's how it splits: → Sonnet 5 runs the session and writes the code → Haiku 5.5 explores files and docs in parallel → Opus 5.5 stays on call as advisor for the big decisions → you stop burning Opus context on tasks that don't need it Opus only steps in at three moments: → before a plan locks → when the same error hits twice → before calling it done Sonnet builds. Haiku explores. Opus reviews. JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to JEV in milliseconds, and the big models only see the ones that split the full tree > Sonnet 5 runs the main session and edits code > search maps the repo on Haiku 5.5 > grep finds call sites on Haiku 5.5 > docs pulls the API reference on Haiku 5.5 > Opus 5.5 on call as advisor, reads the full transcript when consulted > JEV routes micro-forks in milliseconds paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Run the main session on Sonnet 5 with Opus 5.5 as advisor. 2. Create three read-only Haiku 5.5 subagents: search (maps the repo), grep (finds call sites), docs (pulls the API reference). 3. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before locking a plan, after the same error twice, and before calling a task done. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool choice, path selection, retries) through JEV. Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳ save it, it'll come in handy.

delost

307,700 views • 3 days ago

OPUS 5.5 JUST DROPPED AND I PLUGGED IT INTO NERVE WITHIN AN HOUR. IT SELF VERIFIED ITS OWN TRADE THESIS THREE TIMES BEFORE FIRING. +5 ETH IN ONE SESSION. repo: every model before this proposed trades. opus 5.5 argues with itself before proposing. i replaced the analyst slot. same impulse. same spine. same jev for speed scoring. opus 5.5 now sits where astra used to sit but it does something astra never did. it checks its own work. first pool comes in. opus reads the narrative brief from grok. reads the jev score. reads the analyzer output. writes a thesis. then it attacks its own thesis. finds a weakness. rewrites. attacks again. three rounds. all inside one call. the impulse that exits the analyst slot is not a first impression. it is a thesis that survived its own author trying to kill it. astra wrote one paragraph and moved on. opus 5.5 writes three drafts and only sends the one it could not break. 1M context means it holds the entire narrative map, the last 200 pool results, the ghost log, and the current portfolio in one pass. no truncation. no summary. the full picture. first session i watched it reject a pool that jev scored 0.87. opus wrote the thesis, attacked it, found that the narrative was 14 hours old and decelerating despite fresh volume. the crowd was leaving not arriving. jev saw the numbers. opus saw the story behind the numbers was ending. then it cleared two pools in a row that grok flagged as early narrative. opus confirmed both, self verified, fired. pool 1: +2.1 ETH. pool 2: +2.9 ETH. +5 ETH. one session. the model that argues with itself before spending your money. jev decides in 190ms. opus thinks for 4 seconds. nerve runs both because speed and depth are not the same question.

OPUS 5.5 JUST DROPPED AND I PLUGGED IT INTO NERVE WITHIN AN HOUR. IT SELF VERIFIED ITS OWN TRADE THESIS THREE TIMES BEFORE FIRING. +5 ETH IN ONE SESSION. repo: every model before this proposed trades. opus 5.5 argues with itself before proposing. i replaced the analyst slot. same impulse. same spine. same jev for speed scoring. opus 5.5 now sits where astra used to sit but it does something astra never did. it checks its own work. first pool comes in. opus reads the narrative brief from grok. reads the jev score. reads the analyzer output. writes a thesis. then it attacks its own thesis. finds a weakness. rewrites. attacks again. three rounds. all inside one call. the impulse that exits the analyst slot is not a first impression. it is a thesis that survived its own author trying to kill it. astra wrote one paragraph and moved on. opus 5.5 writes three drafts and only sends the one it could not break. 1M context means it holds the entire narrative map, the last 200 pool results, the ghost log, and the current portfolio in one pass. no truncation. no summary. the full picture. first session i watched it reject a pool that jev scored 0.87. opus wrote the thesis, attacked it, found that the narrative was 14 hours old and decelerating despite fresh volume. the crowd was leaving not arriving. jev saw the numbers. opus saw the story behind the numbers was ending. then it cleared two pools in a row that grok flagged as early narrative. opus confirmed both, self verified, fired. pool 1: +2.1 ETH. pool 2: +2.9 ETH. +5 ETH. one session. the model that argues with itself before spending your money. jev decides in 190ms. opus thinks for 4 seconds. nerve runs both because speed and depth are not the same question.

h100envy

11,823 views • 21 days ago

Opus 5.5 beats Jev and GPT-6 Sol in 3 moves: Rubik’s Cube race We made 4 models run with same limits for all: 20 moves or 5 minutes. Every move = 1 API call. Results: Opus 5.5: solved in 1m 12.87s with the perfect 3 moves GPT-6 Sol: wrong first move, out of time after 4 moves Jev: 20 moves in 20 seconds, ran out of moves Laya: 20 moves in 9.5s, ran out of moves Opus, GPT, and Jev ran via Laya ran locally.

Opus 5.5 beats Jev and GPT-6 Sol in 3 moves: Rubik’s Cube race We made 4 models run with same limits for all: 20 moves or 5 minutes. Every move = 1 API call. Results: Opus 5.5: solved in 1m 12.87s with the perfect 3 moves GPT-6 Sol: wrong first move, out of time after 4 moves Jev: 20 moves in 20 seconds, ran out of moves Laya: 20 moves in 9.5s, ran out of moves Opus, GPT, and Jev ran via Laya ran locally.

AI/ML API

385,681 views • 19 days ago

stop picking one model, a spider merged OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS into one business system one command splits a business into 6 jobs: plan, code, decide, run 24/7, review and ship every job has 4 candidates. the spider scans them one by one, marks the highest score as best, locks it in and swings to the next job the plan goes to Opus 5.5 at 0.94. Jev scores 0.52 on the same job on decisions it flips. Jev wins at 0.97 and Opus 5.5 gets 0.74, so the model that lost the plan is the one making the calls the code goes to Claude Code, and the job called "who never sleeps" goes to OpenAI Dots Opus 5.5 comes back a second time to check the work, and Sonnet 5.5 gets it out at the end 6 of 6 modules are locked and the system goes online run the same test on your own stack before you pay one model to do all six jobs ↓

stop picking one model, a spider merged OPUS 5.5 + SONNET 5.5 + JEV + OPENAI DOTS into one business system one command splits a business into 6 jobs: plan, code, decide, run 24/7, review and ship every job has 4 candidates. the spider scans them one by one, marks the highest score as best, locks it in and swings to the next job the plan goes to Opus 5.5 at 0.94. Jev scores 0.52 on the same job on decisions it flips. Jev wins at 0.97 and Opus 5.5 gets 0.74, so the model that lost the plan is the one making the calls the code goes to Claude Code, and the job called "who never sleeps" goes to OpenAI Dots Opus 5.5 comes back a second time to check the work, and Sonnet 5.5 gets it out at the end 6 of 6 modules are locked and the system goes online run the same test on your own stack before you pay one model to do all six jobs ↓

Noisy

11,722 views • 8 days ago

Your coding agent is a surgeon doing the paperwork. Opus 5.5 is brilliant. And you're paying it to decide which file to open. Which test to run. Whether to retry. That's not surgery. That's admin. Give the admin to Jev. Keep the surgeon in surgery. Same results. A third of the bill. Full architecture below 👇

Your coding agent is a surgeon doing the paperwork. Opus 5.5 is brilliant. And you're paying it to decide which file to open. Which test to run. Whether to retry. That's not surgery. That's admin. Give the admin to Jev. Keep the surgeon in surgery. Same results. A third of the bill. Full architecture below 👇

CyrilXBT

29,553 views • 3 days ago

This is what the future of coding looks like. Multiple AI models working in the same Codex session, with Jev routing them to tackle different parts of the task. Here, I had it build a full-stack demo app: > Opus 5.5 planned it. > GPT-6 Astra built the backend. > Kimi K3 built the frontend. > DeepSeek handled testing. > GLM 5.3 Flash wrote the docs. Jev handles the switching. I never touched the model picker. 40% cheaper, 15% faster for the same build.

This is what the future of coding looks like. Multiple AI models working in the same Codex session, with Jev routing them to tackle different parts of the task. Here, I had it build a full-stack demo app: > Opus 5.5 planned it. > GPT-6 Astra built the backend. > Kimi K3 built the frontend. > DeepSeek handled testing. > GLM 5.3 Flash wrote the docs. Jev handles the switching. I never touched the model picker. 40% cheaper, 15% faster for the same build.

elvis

16,347 views • 16 days ago

I just built a Jev X Viral Post Analyser. 100,000 viral X posts. 20.4 seconds. $0.67. Claude Opus 5, same corpus, same clock, got through 214 posts and spent $0.98. per post that is ~680x cheaper the full Opus pass would have run $458. viral analysis is the perfect Jev job. • it is not writing, it is 14 yes/no calls per post: > does the hook open a loop, > is there a number in the first line, > is the proof real or claimed. classification, not prose. • what it found: 1,220 posts broke into the top 1%. baseline 1.22%. > superlative claim - 2.34% viral. 1.92x baseline > contrarian take - 1.59%. 1.31x > launch / tool drop - 1.46%. 1.19x and numbered lists, the thing everyone writes: 0.55%. below baseline. the most used hook is the least viral one. full stop. • what you are watching: left is the post under analysis, right is Jev answering 14 typed questions about it, each with a confidence score. the run stops at 20.4s because that is when Jev finished all 100k. pulled the corpus through a few X APIs, one parallel pass into Jev. should I drop it to public? Read my latest article on Jev Engineering below and turn your ideas into reality.

I just built a Jev X Viral Post Analyser. 100,000 viral X posts. 20.4 seconds. $0.67. Claude Opus 5, same corpus, same clock, got through 214 posts and spent $0.98. per post that is ~680x cheaper the full Opus pass would have run $458. viral analysis is the perfect Jev job. • it is not writing, it is 14 yes/no calls per post: > does the hook open a loop, > is there a number in the first line, > is the proof real or claimed. classification, not prose. • what it found: 1,220 posts broke into the top 1%. baseline 1.22%. > superlative claim - 2.34% viral. 1.92x baseline > contrarian take - 1.59%. 1.31x > launch / tool drop - 1.46%. 1.19x and numbered lists, the thing everyone writes: 0.55%. below baseline. the most used hook is the least viral one. full stop. • what you are watching: left is the post under analysis, right is Jev answering 14 typed questions about it, each with a confidence score. the run stops at 20.4s because that is when Jev finished all 100k. pulled the corpus through a few X APIs, one parallel pass into Jev. should I drop it to public? Read my latest article on Jev Engineering below and turn your ideas into reality.

Movez

82,397 views • 25 days ago

jev + opus 5.5... i simply can't comprehend why everyone isn't building this yet. in my workflow, this cut costs and time by ~80%. i think it's one of the best ways to use it. → pick relevant project notes before loading the context → route suitable tasks to a faster worker → choose a recovery path when a tool fails → run focused checks before the full test suite opus handles the hard reasoning. jev picks from options the harness prepares and validates. i explain how to build the decision layer in the article below:

jev + opus 5.5... i simply can't comprehend why everyone isn't building this yet. in my workflow, this cut costs and time by ~80%. i think it's one of the best ways to use it. → pick relevant project notes before loading the context → route suitable tasks to a faster worker → choose a recovery path when a tool fails → run focused checks before the full test suite opus handles the hard reasoning. jev picks from options the harness prepares and validates. i explain how to build the decision layer in the article below:

Avid

1,054,941 views • 20 days ago

$this is pure f*cking treasure Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /goal claude --auto-mode "/goal all tests pass and lint is clean" Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code in auto mode Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium Fable 5.1 inspects the full transcript and only speaks up at the turn boundary: → not yet met: am I drifting from acceptance criteria? → met: do the tests, diffs, and lint hold? → impossible: am I chasing an unreachable state? Fable grades. Opus ships JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or halt) go to JEV in under 16ms, and the big models only see the ones that split — the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > worker edits and patches code on Sonnet 5.5 > explorer indexes AST maps and call sites on Sonnet 5.5 > verifier runs tests and linters on Sonnet 5.5 > all three subagents on medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the Stop hook evaluator > JEV routes micro-forks under 16ms paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Set the main session to Opus 5.5 on high effort with auto mode enabled. 2. Put Fable 5.1 on call as a session-scoped evaluator attached to the Stop hook: - Read-only transcript evaluation with zero tool calls - Three structured outcomes: not yet met (with steering notes), met (auto-clear), and impossible (abort early) 3. Spawn Sonnet 5.5 subagents on medium effort for worker, explorer, and verifier roles. Defer goal checks while background tasks run. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool resolution, path selection, auto-retries) through JEV. 5. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: run long tasks with: claude --auto-mode \"/goal \" Show me every configuration change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳$

this is pure f*cking treasure Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /goal claude --auto-mode "/goal all tests pass and lint is clean" Opus 5.5 keeps writing the code in auto mode Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium Fable 5.1 inspects the full transcript and only speaks up at the turn boundary: → not yet met: am I drifting from acceptance criteria? → met: do the tests, diffs, and lint hold? → impossible: am I chasing an unreachable state? Fable grades. Opus ships JEV engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or halt) go to JEV in under 16ms, and the big models only see the ones that split — the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > worker edits and patches code on Sonnet 5.5 > explorer indexes AST maps and call sites on Sonnet 5.5 > verifier runs tests and linters on Sonnet 5.5 > all three subagents on medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the Stop hook evaluator > JEV routes micro-forks under 16ms paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Reconfigure my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Set the main session to Opus 5.5 on high effort with auto mode enabled. 2. Put Fable 5.1 on call as a session-scoped evaluator attached to the Stop hook: - Read-only transcript evaluation with zero tool calls - Three structured outcomes: not yet met (with steering notes), met (auto-clear), and impossible (abort early) 3. Spawn Sonnet 5.5 subagents on medium effort for worker, explorer, and verifier roles. Defer goal checks while background tasks run. 4. Route fast deterministic forks (tool resolution, path selection, auto-retries) through JEV. 5. Add one rule to CLAUDE.md: run long tasks with: claude --auto-mode \"/goal \" Show me every configuration change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

mirku

41,812 views • 8 days ago