Uniform Spec Auditor
Uniform designers paste client requirements, garment specs, and sample checks, and Jev classifies requirement types, verifies each claimed match against evidence, and scores approval readiness.
The kernel.
Jev checks each claim about Uniform design against its evidence; anything unclear goes to a person, so fashion designers never act on a guess.
Why this primitiveField-by-field typed decisions make procurement compliance auditable while uncertain matches remain with human reviewers.
Required key.
Add this in your Lovable project under Settings → Secrets before pasting the prompt below.
The build prompt.
Paste into a fresh Lovable project. Make sure the key above is set first. read the build strategy →
Build "Uniform Spec Auditor" as a ONE-SHOT Lovable build (~5 credits, no follow-ups).
Single-page TanStack Start app, one route, cut scope ruthlessly.
THIS PROMPT IS SELF-CONTAINED
Do not assume the participant knows Jev or has read any other page. TypeSafe Jev is a decision model,
not a text generator. It receives `state` plus a map of typed `questions` and returns JSON that code can
use directly. Use Choice to select exactly one defined option, Noul for a yes/no probability from 0 to 1,
and Score for a probability-weighted position across ordered levels. Keep rules, thresholds, arithmetic,
and actions in code. Use a generative model only if the product separately needs prose.
CONCEPT
Uniform designers paste client requirements, garment specs, and sample checks, and Jev classifies requirement types, verifies each claimed match against evidence, and scores approval readiness.
Discipline: Fashion & Textile Design (Uniform design).
Jev pattern: Verify & Escalate (check then hand off) — a Jev `noul` checks each claim/field against its evidence; low or mid probabilities are escalated to a human review queue instead of auto-acting.
Why typed decisions: Field-by-field typed decisions make procurement compliance auditable while uncertain matches remain with human reviewers.
ENGINE: TypeSafe Jev (typed decisions, not text)
- Before writing code, ask the participant for `TYPESAFE_API_KEY` with Lovable's secure secret form. Never
ask them to paste it into chat, never prefix it with `VITE_`, and never expose it to browser code.
- Put the callable server function in `src/lib/jev.functions.ts`; do not import a server-only module from UI code.
- Validate the user's input before the handler and read `process.env['TYPESAFE_API_KEY']` inside the handler.
- From the server, call:
POST https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone
Authorization: Bearer <TYPESAFE_API_KEY>, Content-Type: application/json
body: { "model": "jev-latest", "state": <Client requirements, garment specification fields, and sample checks>, "questions": QUESTIONS }
- Ask all questions in ONE request (they run in parallel and cannot see each other).
- Read Choice from `answers[id].choice`, `.probabilities`, and `.confidence`; Score from `.score`,
`.probabilities`, `.legend`, and `.confidence`; Noul from `.noul` only (it has no separate confidence).
SERVER IMPLEMENTATION (adapt the input name and result mapping to this concept)
```ts
import { createServerFn } from "@tanstack/react-start";
import { z } from "zod";
const Input = z.object({ text: z.string().trim().min(1).max(20000) });
export const decide = createServerFn({ method: "POST" })
.inputValidator((input: unknown) => Input.parse(input))
.handler(async ({ data }) => {
const apiKey = process.env['TYPESAFE_API_KEY'];
if (!apiKey) return { ok: false as const, status: 500, message: "TYPESAFE_API_KEY is not configured." };
const requestBody = {
model: "jev-latest",
state: { text: data.text },
questions: QUESTIONS,
};
let response: Response | undefined;
for (let attempt = 0; attempt < 3; attempt += 1) {
response = await fetch("https://api.typesafe.ai/v1/systemone", {
method: "POST",
headers: { Authorization: `Bearer ${apiKey}`, "Content-Type": "application/json" },
body: JSON.stringify(requestBody),
});
if (response.ok || (response.status !== 429 && response.status < 500)) break;
if (attempt < 2) await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, 750 * 2 ** attempt));
}
if (!response) return { ok: false as const, status: 503, message: "Jev did not respond." };
if (!response.ok) {
const message = (await response.text()).slice(0, 500) || `Jev request failed (${response.status}).`;
return { ok: false as const, status: response.status, message };
}
const result = await response.json();
return { ok: true as const, answers: result.answers };
});
```
In the page component, call `decide` with `useServerFn`, preserve the participant's input while loading or
on error, disable duplicate submissions, and render the returned typed values rather than parsing prose.
QUESTIONS (start here, refine wording if needed)
{
"requirement_type": {
"type": "choice",
"instructions": "Which requirement category is being checked?",
"criteria": {
"appearance": "Color, style, or branding",
"performance": "Durability, weather, or activity performance",
"fit_range": "Size range, fit, or accessibility",
"other_or_unclear": "Other or insufficiently defined requirement"
}
},
"requirement_met": {
"type": "noul",
"instructions": "Does the submitted evidence show that the garment meets this requirement?",
"criteria": {
"true": "Relevant specification or inspection directly supports the requirement",
"false": "Evidence is absent, conflicting, or does not meet the stated threshold"
}
},
"approval_readiness": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "How ready is the uniform proposal for client approval?",
"criteria": [
"1: Key requirements are unverified",
"2: Several important gaps remain",
"3: Most requirements supported with a limited gap",
"4: Checked requirements are documented as met"
]
}
}
DECISION RULES (in code, not in the model)
- choice/score: if confidence < 0.6 show a "needs review" badge instead of acting.
- noul: >= 0.75 = yes, <= 0.25 = no, otherwise "review".
- score: normalise with score / (levels - 1) before combining with weights.
- Missing or malformed answers go to review. Show safe HTTP status and message in the UI. Retry only 429/5xx,
at most twice with increasing delay; never retry 400/401/402/403/404 and never invent results.
- If the product needs prose (a summary, a message), use Lovable AI for that text only; Jev makes the decisions.
UI
claim cards marked supported / unsupported / needs review, with a review queue column. Include 2 sample inputs as one-click chips so the demo works instantly.
Tailwind + shadcn, editorial look, footer: "Built during the Creative AI & Quantum Hackathon organised by StreetKode Fam during Indian Krump Festival 14".
NO database, NO auth, NO extra pages, NO tests.
BEFORE YOU FINISH
- Run the app and test both sample inputs through the real server function.
- Confirm the browser receives no API key and no fabricated fallback result.
- Confirm Choice/Score confidence and Noul probability drive the stated review rules.
- Confirm loading, success, review, empty-input, and service-error states are readable on mobile.
Reference only if needed: https://docs.typesafe.ai/api and https://docs.typesafe.ai/primitives
Market sizing.
Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.