quicksilver

Stop paying Claude to skim.

A big share of every Claude Code session is spent reading things only to decide whether they matter. Which of these 187 files handle auth? Which of these 3,000 log lines are real failures? Which of these 200 tickets are refund requests? Claude reads it all, pays for it all, and the context fills up with noise.

Quicksilver is a Claude Code skill that hands those calls to Jev, TypeSafe's System One model. Jev returns typed verdicts (yes/no, a label, a score) in about a second, for $0.042 per million tokens. Claude gets back a shortlist and spends its tokens on the thinking only it can do.

you ─▶ Claude ──"which files handle auth?"──▶ quicksilver ──▶ Jev (187 files, parallel)
                                                   │
       Claude ◀──── 4 file paths + confidence ─────┘       ~2.4k tokens instead of ~26k

Install

npx github:UditAkhourii/quicksilver

The installer copies the skill into ~/.claude/skills/quicksilver and asks for your Jev key once. Get a key at console.typesafe.ai. Then restart Claude Code. That's it. Claude uses the skill on its own whenever a task looks like "read a lot to decide a little".

# pass the key non-interactively (CI, dotfiles)
npx github:UditAkhourii/quicksilver install --key YOUR_JEV_KEY

# as a Claude Code plugin
/plugin marketplace add UditAkhourii/quicksilver
/plugin install quicksilver@quicksilver

# from a clone
git clone https://github.com/UditAkhourii/quicksilver && cd quicksilver && ./install.sh   # or .\install.ps1

The benchmark

Twelve tasks a coding agent really runs into. Eight use real public data (a supercomputer log, Banking77, UCI SMS Spam, SST-2, the Hono codebase and its git history, lodash). Each task was solved by a Claude Code subagent working the normal way (Read, Grep, Glob) and by Claude + Quicksilver, and both were scored against hidden ground truth.

Bold = within 2 points of Claude alone.

The claim: on bulk judgment work, Quicksilver cuts the tokens Claude spends by 86% (median 82%). It matches Claude's accuracy on 8 of 12 real-world tasks and runs up to 20× faster, for a median of $0.004 of Jev per task.

Numbers are measured, not estimated, and the benchmark is fully reproducible: see bench/. Claude-side tokens subtract the fixed per-agent overhead, measured with a control task. Quicksilver is charged for loading its SKILL.md on every task, plus every command and every byte of output Claude reads back.

Where it shines, and where it doesn't

Use it for, and trust it on:

• Finding needles in big inputs. Real failures in a 3,000-line log, the 4 auth files among 187, the right function in a 17k-line file. It hit 100% on all of them with 91–95% fewer tokens.
• Bulk routing with clear labels. Support intents, CI failure causes, sentiment. Accuracy was 96–100%, about 10–15× faster than Claude reading each item.
• "Where is X?" across a codebase. 10 of 10 top-3 hits with 91% fewer tokens.

Use it as a shortlist, and let Claude check the ? items:

• Look-alike code. On the security task it caught every vulnerable file, but it also flagged safe twins at p≈0.5–0.65. Those are exactly the items Quicksilver marks as borderline for Claude to review.
• Subjective or house-style labels. Commit types (perf vs refactor) scored 76% against Claude's 83%.
• Labels that encode unwritten policy. The BGL supercomputer log's "alert" labels mark many FATAL lines as normal. Claude alone only reached 54% F1 there, and Quicksilver 23%.

Don't use it for: writing, editing, multi-step reasoning, or anything grep answers exactly. On huge scans (thousands of Jev calls) wall-clock time is about the same as Claude's. The win there is tokens and context, not speed. Add --fast to pack items and go about 10× faster on obvious needles.

What Claude can do with it

qs filter   "Does this file handle user sessions?" src           # which files matter
qs filter   "Does this line report a failure?" app.log --lines    # log triage, repeats collapsed
qs classify --labels "bug,feature,question" --items issues.jsonl # bulk routing
qs rank     "where do we issue refunds?" src --top 5              # relevance ranking
qs find     "the retry backoff logic" huge_module.py              # locate lines in huge files
qs ask      "Does this contract allow termination without notice?" --state @contract.txt
qs status                                                          # key check + lifetime tokens saved

The output is built for an LLM to read: one line per hit, repeated log patterns collapsed into line-number ranges, classify results as id lists, and a ? on anything borderline. Every run ends with a receipt:

— 3000 scanned · 6 matched · 0 borderline · 64.2s · jev 1.0M tok ($0.0436) · ~56k Claude tokens not read

Better prompting, for free

Quicksilver quietly changes how Claude prompts. Instead of "read all of this and tell me what matters", Claude has to state one narrow, typed judgment: a yes/no condition, a closed set of labels, or a rubric. That's the same discipline that makes any LLM prompt reliable. The skill teaches it explicitly: one judgment per question, exact boundary cases, a catch-all label, and no arithmetic or dates. The question becomes a reusable, testable unit rather than a vibe.

Safety

• It never sends .env*, private keys, certificates, or credentials files. It respects .gitignore, and skips binaries and files over 2 MB.
• Content goes to TypeSafe's API (api.typesafe.ai). TypeSafe states that Jev is not trained on customer data. Don't point it at anything you can't send to a third party.
• The key is stored in ~/.quicksilver/config.json with user-only permissions. npx github:UditAkhourii/quicksilver setup --remove deletes it.

FAQ

Does this replace Claude? No. Jev can't write, reason, or edit. Quicksilver makes Claude cheaper by keeping skimming out of its context.

What does Jev cost? $0.042 per million input tokens, and output is free. The whole 12-task benchmark cost $0.45 of Jev.

Is this official? No. It's an independent open-source project, not affiliated with Anthropic or TypeSafe AI.

License

MIT © Udit Akhouri