🎬 Filmmaking & Animation · Prop design

Prop Design Sorter

Paste prop concepts and rank them by story utility, period fit, and visual readability using weights set by the art team.

Score Ranker· graded ranking
Section · Jev

The kernel.

full primer →

Jev rates every option for Prop design on a few named qualities; filmmakers move sliders to decide what matters and the ranking updates instantly.

Why this primitiveComparable ratings separate narrative usefulness from aesthetic preference during early prop selection.

Kernel
comparable Jev `score` questions per candidate on 3-4 named dimensions, normalised with score/(levels-1) and combined with user-controlled weights in code
Drives the UI as
a ranked list with weight sliders that re-rank instantly without calling Jev again
Appendix · Secrets

Required key.

TYPESAFE_API_KEY
Your TypeSafe key. The mega-prompt asks for it with a secure form and keeps it on the server. Jev returns typed decisions: choice, noul (yes/no probability) and score.
open ↗

Add this in your Lovable project under Settings → Secrets before pasting the prompt below.

Appendix · Mega-prompt

The build prompt.

Paste into a fresh Lovable project. Make sure the key above is set first. read the build strategy →

Build "Prop Design Sorter" 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
Paste prop concepts and rank them by story utility, period fit, and visual readability using weights set by the art team.
Discipline: Filmmaking & Animation (Prop design).
Jev pattern: Score Ranker (graded ranking) — comparable Jev `score` questions per candidate on 3-4 named dimensions, normalised with score/(levels-1) and combined with user-controlled weights in code.
Why typed decisions: Comparable ratings separate narrative usefulness from aesthetic preference during early prop selection.

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": <Prop function, story period, concept descriptions, and weights>, "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)
{
  "story_utility": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How well does this prop serve the stated action or story beat?",
    "criteria": [
      "Serves no clear purpose",
      "Marginal use",
      "Useful to the beat",
      "Essential to the beat"
    ]
  },
  "period_fit": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How well does this concept fit the stated production period or world?",
    "criteria": [
      "Contradicts it",
      "Several mismatches",
      "Mostly fits",
      "Fully convincing fit"
    ]
  },
  "visual_readability": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How clearly can viewers recognize the prop in its intended use?",
    "criteria": [
      "Unrecognizable",
      "Often unclear",
      "Generally clear",
      "Immediately recognizable"
    ]
  }
}

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
a ranked list with weight sliders that re-rank instantly without calling Jev again. 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
Appendix · Market

Market sizing.

TAM
TAM: $3B+ production design and asset creation
SAM
SAM: $250M prop and set design workflows
SOM
SOM: $2M art departments

Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.

See also

Adjacent entries.