CommunityJev Tools & CLIs
COGNIT-Guard: Calibrated Standalone Direct-Decision Guardrails with Heterogeneous CPU-NPU Confidence Cascading under Explicit Latency and False-Positive Constraints (arXiv 2609.33671)
COGNIT-Guard is a safety guardrail that pairs a calibration-tuned CPU gatekeeper with confidence-gated escalation to an NPU-resident 322M direct-decision model, Laya-322M. It reports 98.85% accuracy and 0.42% benign false-positive rate on DUCS-Bench, with experience replay recovering out-of-distribution accuracy.
- Format
- Article
- Published by
- Community
- Last verified
- Oct 2026
Highlights
- Pairs a validation-calibrated CPU gatekeeper with confidence-gated escalation to NPU-resident 322M Laya-322M.
- On the unseen DUCS-Bench split (N=607): 98.85% accuracy, 0.42% benign false-positive rate, 1.12% ECE, 0.0104 Brier.
- On Huawei Ascend 910C, pure NPU inference runs at 21.77 ms mean latency; the live cascade averages 41.63 ms with 0.00% FPR.
- Out-of-domain Laya accuracy fell from 60.33% to 56.81%; experience replay restored it to 64.10-65.05%.
- After replay, in-domain accuracy reaches 99.67-99.84% with 0.00-0.42% false-positive rates.
Watch out
arXiv preprint posted September 27, 2026 (cs.CR, cs.LG), 7 pages, single author. All calibration, latency, and cascade numbers are self-reported on DUCS-Bench and SafetyBench-ZH; the abstract does not say whether Laya-322M, the code, or the calibration procedure are released, and results are tied to Huawei Ascend 910C hardware.
Questions about this entry
Short answers drawn from the linked project or page.
It targets real-time pre-ingestion safety guardrails, jointly handling probability calibration, dual-use false-positive control, and heterogeneous CPU-NPU routing under explicit latency objectives.
A validation-calibrated CPU fast gatekeeper handles easy cases and escalates by confidence to an NPU-resident 322M bidirectional direct-decision model, Laya-322M, under an asymmetric false-positive penalty.
On the clean unseen DUCS-Bench test split of 607 items, it reports 98.85% accuracy, a benign false-positive rate of 0.42% (1 of 238), 1.12% ECE, and a 0.0104 Brier score.
On Huawei Ascend 910C NPUs, pure NPU inference runs at 21.77 ms mean latency (45.90 QPS), while the live serial CPU-NPU cascade averages 41.63 ms with a 39.47 ms median.
On SafetyBench-ZH, moving out of domain dropped Laya's accuracy from 60.33% to 56.81%, and the domain-specific bi-encoder baseline CLM-8B reached 55.10%.
Experience replay restored out-of-distribution accuracy to 64.10-65.05%, while in-domain accuracy reached 99.67-99.84% with false-positive rates of 0.00-0.42%.
The paper notes shallow classifiers are brittle to phrasing shifts, hidden-state probes require coupling to a target LLM, and generative guards incur high decoding latency and dual-use false positives.
Reactions & coverage
Posts, threads, and videos about this entry from around the web.
YouTube: Kubernetes admission control with a decision model, fail-closed.
Hacker News: SafeDep Gryph plus Jev checks for compromised coding-agent behavior.
2 pointsDetecting Compromised AI Coding Agents with Jev and GryphRead the thread on Hacker NewsHacker News: Show HN: Agent Chaperone screens tool calls and results with Jev before the agent sees them.
sepehrsafari5 pointsShow HN: Agent Chaperone – Screen AI agent tool calls and results with JevRead the thread on Hacker NewsX: Agent Handoff Gate: agents verify what they hand off
Related terms
Glossary definitions related to this entry.
More Jev resources like this
A unified guardrail model that selects an applicable audit policy from a policy tree, then classifies safety conditioned on the retrieved policies. On 7,033 cases it reports 93.72% safety accuracy and 93.10% hierarchical routing accuracy at 58 ms mean latency.
Jev Models & ReimplementationsArticle#community#research#arxiv
Community
JEV-IDS is an open experimental network intrusion detector that serializes one flow per request and asks Jev for a binary attack probability and a finite-choice traffic category. On a 300-flow NSL-KDD pilot it reports F1 0.859 and novel-attack recall 0.838.
Jev Tools & CLIsArticle#community#research#arxiv
Community
A diagnosis-guided repair agent whose CWE classification comes from Jev. Jev beats six open-weight models on every classification and ranking metric and runs at 6.27x lower median latency than GPT-5.6-Sol; with Jev diagnosing, repair lifts the detector-measured security pass rate from 63.5% to 70.7%.
Jev Tools & CLIsArticle#community#research#arxiv
Community
78GitHub stars
A CLI that turns Jev into Unix pipeline primitives: is, choose, score, filter, and guard commands return typed verdicts, stable exit codes, and versioned JSON without prompt or parsing glue.
Jev Tools & CLIs#community#python#cli
Community
sharziki/semdecidePython
sharziki/semdecidePython67GitHub stars
A security hook for coding agents that asks Jev three typed questions before every tool call and scans tool results for prompt injection, with adapters for Claude Code, Codex, Copilot CLI, Gemini CLI, Cursor, pi, OpenCode and ACP.
Jev Tools & CLIs#community#javascript#agents
Community
leepokai/jev-guardJavaScript
leepokai/jev-guardJavaScript27GitHub stars
Agent-ergonomic CLI following the AXI conventions that gives coding agents Jev judgments for blocking risky tool calls, screening fetched content for prompt injection, triaging logs, flagging risky diffs, and ranking many items. Routine commands are decided locally at no cost.
Jev Tools & CLIs#community#typescript#cli
Community
shiftynick/jev-axiTypeScript
shiftynick/jev-axiTypeScriptFrom the Jev guides
Original write-ups on what this entry is for.
More than eighty preprints now evaluate, attack, and reproduce the typed-decision class. The broadest board, the coherence gap, the rejection bottleneck, and the attacks that still work.
Jev Practices & Patterns#research#evaluation#calibration
Read article
A decision model cannot be talked into generating text, but the label is still a target. Why narrow, literal questions resist injection and why keeping the act in code is the real backstop.
Jev Practices & Patterns#guardrails#security#prompt-injection
Read article
TypeSafe publishes evals, but the numbers that matter are the ones measured on your task. A tour of the independent benchmarks, field reports, and the recurring finding that question design dominates.
Jev Practices & Patterns#benchmarks#evaluation#calibration
Read article
From the Jev community
Posts from builders shipping with Jev right now.