🎮 Game Design & Interactive Media · Game narrative design

Worldbuilding Consistency Desk

Paste a worldbuilding entry alongside canon rules and Jev checks for rule compatibility, timeline compatibility, and faction consistency; code sends any failed check to human review.

Noul Check· yes/no probability
Section · Jev

The kernel.

full primer →

Jev answers a short checklist of yes/no questions about Game narrative design for game designers, each as a probability, and simple rules turn them into pass, review or fail.

Why this primitiveIndependent consistency checks are easier to audit than generated summaries and leave canon decisions with the team.

Kernel
several independent Jev `noul` questions (one per condition) asked together over the same state, combined by explicit code rules
Drives the UI as
a checklist of conditions, each with a 0-1 probability meter and a pass / review / fail colour from code-owned thresholds
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 "Worldbuilding Consistency Desk" 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 a worldbuilding entry alongside canon rules and Jev checks for rule compatibility, timeline compatibility, and faction consistency; code sends any failed check to human review.
Discipline: Game Design & Interactive Media (Game narrative design).
Jev pattern: Noul Check (yes/no probability) — several independent Jev `noul` questions (one per condition) asked together over the same state, combined by explicit code rules.
Why typed decisions: Independent consistency checks are easier to audit than generated summaries and leave canon decisions with the team.

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": <Lore entry, canon rules, timeline, and faction notes>, "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)
{
  "rule_compatibility": {
    "type": "noul",
    "instructions": "Does the entry comply with the supplied world rules?",
    "criteria": {
      "true": "The entry does not contradict any supplied rule.",
      "false": "The entry contradicts a supplied rule."
    }
  },
  "timeline_compatibility": {
    "type": "noul",
    "instructions": "Does the entry fit the supplied chronology?",
    "criteria": {
      "true": "Dates and event ordering are compatible with the timeline.",
      "false": "A date or event ordering conflicts with the timeline."
    }
  },
  "faction_consistency": {
    "type": "noul",
    "instructions": "Does the entry align with the stated faction traits or relationships?",
    "criteria": {
      "true": "Faction behavior and relationships fit the supplied canon.",
      "false": "A faction detail conflicts with supplied canon."
    }
  }
}

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 checklist of conditions, each with a 0-1 probability meter and a pass / review / fail colour from code-owned thresholds. 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
Game development and narrative tools: ~$10B
SAM
Game lore and continuity tools: ~$400M
SOM
Narrative teams: ~$2M

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

See also

Adjacent entries.