Accessibility Spec Gate
Paste accessibility requirements and build-test results; Jev checks each compliance claim against its test evidence, selects the concern type, and sends uncertain results to an accessibility reviewer.
Verify & Escalate· check then hand off
Section · Jev
full primer →The kernel.
Jev checks each claim about Game accessibility against its evidence; anything unclear goes to a person, so game designers never act on a guess.
Why this primitivePer-requirement typed verification makes gaps auditable and avoids treating unsupported prose as compliance.
Kernel
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
Drives the UI as
claim cards marked supported / unsupported / needs review, with a review queue column
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.
budget · 1 message
Paste into a fresh Lovable project. Make sure the key above is set first. read the build strategy →
Build "Accessibility Spec Gate" 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 accessibility requirements and build-test results; Jev checks each compliance claim against its test evidence, selects the concern type, and sends uncertain results to an accessibility reviewer.
Discipline: Game Design & Interactive Media (Game accessibility).
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: Per-requirement typed verification makes gaps auditable and avoids treating unsupported prose as compliance.
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": <Accessibility requirement fields and test results>, "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_met": {
"type": "noul",
"instructions": "Does the supplied test evidence demonstrate that this requirement is met?",
"criteria": {
"true": "The test directly demonstrates the requirement under the stated conditions.",
"false": "The test contradicts the requirement or does not demonstrate it."
}
},
"concern": {
"type": "choice",
"instructions": "Which evidence-backed concern applies?",
"criteria": {
"input": "Input or remapping requirement concern.",
"visual": "Visual, color, or text presentation concern.",
"audio": "Audio cue or caption requirement concern.",
"none": "No supported concern."
}
},
"risk": {
"type": "score",
"instructions": "How serious is the confirmed gap for access?",
"criteria": [
"1: Limited impact or workaround is evidenced.",
"2: Meaningful barrier for some players.",
"3: Core play or essential information is inaccessible."
]
}
}
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.
TAM
$5B+ accessibility software and services
SAM
$500M game accessibility tooling
SOM
$2M–$12M studios and publishers
Indicative figures for hackathon pitches — refine with your own research before raising.
Adjacent entries.
Game accessibility
Accessibility Pass Router
Paste a mechanic or interface description and Jev routes it to an accessibility review area while checking for an adjustable alternative.
Game accessibilityAccessibility Passboard
Paste feature descriptions and an accessibility target, and Jev scores each feature for barrier reduction, reach, and implementation priority.
Narrative designQuest Logic Inspector
Paste quest specifications and linked narrative evidence; Jev decides whether quest claims are supported, which inconsistency class applies, and how severe it is, routing uncertain checks to human review.
Production designProp Continuity Check
Paste prop manifests and scene notes; Jev verifies each continuity claim against the notes, classifies mismatches, and sends uncertain cases to a human review queue.