Browse / Agent tools
RomanSlack/jev-drone
Camera-only autonomous drone in MuJoCo with a small judgment model (TypeSafe Jev) in the <email>
Works.Tested on 2026-10-23. From the README alone, on Linux with Haiku.
What we checked
Does it run from the README?Yes. Running in 7:34 on a clean Linux box.The run
Tested Oct 23, 2026, rev 974b473.
Does it do what the README says?1 of 1 claims held up.Evidence
“The no-Jev ablation (free baseline) runs headless and seed 1 stays stuck near 18 m”
Expected seed 1 max_x 18.4 m, not crossed; NOTE seed 0 reached 77.2 m and crossed, contradicting 'every single time'. Got "max_x_m": 18.4, "crossed_barrier": false.
Which checks were skipped?2 checks skipped.Reasons
Skipped checks count as neither passes nor failures.
Examples: 2 skipped
- Jev-engaged flight from the Run it section: Needs TYPESAFE_API_KEY (from .env.example). Not provided; the documented call fails with 'RuntimeError: set TYPESAFE_API_KEY (see .env.example)'. Not obtained or faked.
- replay.py re-renders a recorded flight without API calls: Needs course.mp4.tape.npy from a --video run; that run writes binary mp4 output and no fresh UTF-8 expected text is possible for it. Not run.
Which setups did we try?Works with Haiku. Unverified with Luna.Setups
Linux / Haiku: works, Oct 23, rev 974b473. Linux / Luna: unverified, Oct 23, rev 974b473.
Is it safe to run?Writes outside the project folder: yes by <guest-path>; made outbound HTTPS connections: yes (hosts not recorded)What we saw
Review signals across current setups: connection review, outside write, sensitive read. 164 listed items (named-host connections, static matches, dependency advisories) are below and do not change this verdict.
Repository processes attempted these non-loopback connections; proxies can hide the final hostname. 2 distinct locations. 2 findings. 6 attributed processes.
OSV reports a known vulnerability in this dependency version. 4 distinct locations. 82 findings.
Repository processes attempted these writes outside documented output/cache paths. /dev/udmabuf 2 findings. 16 attributed processes.
A repository process attempted to read this sensitive path. Kind of file: saved web login. 2 findings. 6 attributed processes.
Reviewed as expected for a test run: a Python interpreter or package manager probed its own interpreter file under a system program folder.
Full event, path and process lists for each observed setup:
A quiet run is not a safety guarantee.
Is it maintained?Maintained · 13 commits in 90 days · 2 merged PRs in 90 days · 1 open issues · 0 open PRsActivity
actively maintained: last commit 29 days ago; 13 commits and 2 merged PRs in 90 days; 1 open issues, 0 open PRs; 2 of 5 recent threads got a maintainer reply, median first reply 23.4h; no releases
Can I show this on my README?Copy the badge.Badge
The run
Oct 23 · rev 974b473Independent test, not endorsed by the project.