# Conventions

The rules a change to this repository is held to, in one place.

Nothing here is new policy. Every rule below was already being applied — some of it stated in
[README.md](README.md), some in [SECURITY.md](SECURITY.md), some only visible in the shape of
the files themselves. It is collected here because a convention that only exists in the
maintainer's head is not a convention an outside reader can meet, and because two of the
decisions this repository makes — that nothing here runs, and that pull requests are switched
off — look arbitrary until the reason is written down next to them.

This file binds **contributions to this repository**. It does not bind the runtimes that read
the data; that is what `spec/` is for, and those files say `Status: normative` and mean it.

## The charter: nothing here runs

**This repository contains no executable code, and it will not acquire any.**

Not permitted, without exception:

- `.mjs`, `.js`, `.ts`, `.py`, `.sh` — or any other file that implements detection, scanning,
  normalisation, scoring or I/O;
- `package.json`, `pyproject.toml`, lockfiles, dependencies, build steps;
- an import of, or knowledge of, any framework, SDK or runtime;
- network access, model calls, dependence on the clock, or randomness.

Permitted: JSON data, normative specifications in Markdown, and conformance fixtures
(`input.txt` plus `expected.json`).

The reason is `fork-and-own`. A consumer on a runtime nobody here has thought of should be able
to vendor this repository without inheriting a single technology choice. A build step is a
technology choice; so is a test runner. The moment one exists, the set of runtimes that can
adopt this core shrinks to the set that tolerates it.

The consequence is that **this repository cannot validate itself**. There is no CI in this
organisation and nothing runs on push. The checks below are yours to run, and they are the only
ones there are.

## How a change gets in — and why not by pull request

Pull requests are switched off on the canonical repository at
`git.fromaitochitta.com/open/llm-security-commons`, and issues are not the reporting channel
either. That is deliberate, and the reason is stronger than a preference about tooling.

This repository is **vendored into independent runtimes** — a Claude Code plugin on Node/ESM, a
Python guard, an advisory surface — each pinning a tag. The contract between them is semver, and
a change to detection data changes what those runtimes *find*. A patch to a pattern table is not
a contribution that can be merged and then socialised; it is a contract change that has to be
coordinated with every consumer **before it exists**, because the moment it is tagged, the next
consumer to pull it gets different findings than the one that pulled yesterday. A merge button
does not do that, and nothing downstream of a merge button can.

So the routes in are:

1. **Fork and own it.** MIT, and an intended use rather than a tolerated one. If you need a
   different value in your runtime, this is the fast path and it is fully supported.
2. **Report it privately** — see [SECURITY.md](SECURITY.md). A wrong entry in a detection table
   is a silent false negative in every runtime that reads it, so a report about one is a
   security report even though nothing here executes. That file also explains why a confirmed
   defect in extracted data is usually decided in the runtime it came from before it changes
   here.

If you maintain a consumer, the coordination channel is direct contact with the maintainer, not
this repository's forge surface.

## Data files (JSON)

- **Every JSON file carries a top-level `"version"`** — a semver string. No exceptions.
- **Every JSON file states what it is and where its data came from**, in a top-level
  `"$comment"` or `"description"`. Provenance is not optional metadata here; it is what makes
  the difference between a table and a rumour.
- 2-space indentation, LF line endings, a trailing newline, UTF-8 without BOM.
- **Code points are written as strings** — `"U+200B"` — never as the raw invisible character.
  Review cannot see what it cannot render, and a reviewer who cannot see a character cannot
  check it. The single exception is `conformance/*/input.txt`, which by definition contains the
  actual bytes.
- **Keys are stable identifiers.** Consumers match on them. **Changing a key is a breaking
  change** and is versioned as one.

The four files that carry detection material — `codepoints/carriers.json`,
`signatures/secret-egress.json`, `signatures/malware-signatures.json`,
`signatures/active-content.json` — take one further rule, which is the most important line in
this document:

> **They are changed only from verified source data** — a dump from the owning repository, the
> Unicode standard, published vendor documentation. Never from memory, never "filled in for
> consistency". A guessed code point or a regex with wrong escaping is a silent false negative:
> a detector that looks like it is working and is not looking. If an entry cannot be verified,
> leave it out, or mark it explicitly unverified in its `$comment`.

## Specifications (Markdown)

- A normative specification carries **`Status: normative`** at the top and uses RFC 2119 terms
  (MUST / MUST NOT / SHOULD / MAY) in uppercase, deliberately. These files bind the
  implementations that read them.
- An informative document (`docs/`) carries **`Status: informative`** and is **never ground
  truth**. It records measurements, history and open disagreements; a runtime is not wrong for
  disagreeing with one.
- Naming a file that does not exist yet is allowed where the layout is part of the contract —
  `spec/decode-pipeline.md` is named in README.md and marked **Planned**. It is not a link, and
  nothing depends on it. A normative spec guessed at would be worse than an absent one.

## Conformance cases

- One directory per case: `conformance/<case-id>/input.txt` and
  `conformance/<case-id>/expected.json`.
- `<case-id>` is stable and descriptive. **Changing a case id is a breaking change** — a
  published conformance result names it.
- `expected.json` is **ground truth**. If a runtime disagrees with it, the runtime is wrong.
- The one way that reverses: the fixture is proven wrong. Then the fixture changes **in its own
  commit, with the reason written down** — never folded into a change that does something else,
  because a fixture edit is the one edit that can make every conforming runtime wrong
  identically.
- A case declares the data files it is `scope`d to. A runtime that does not implement a scoped
  table reports the case `not-applicable` — a third verdict beside pass and fail, and one that
  must be reported rather than dropped from the denominator. See
  [`spec/conformance-corpus.md`](spec/conformance-corpus.md).

## When a value may change

Detection values do not change here because someone here judged them wrong. Three mechanisms
have moved a value so far, and each is recorded in the file itself rather than only in the
changelog:

1. **Re-extraction** — the owning runtime changed its own value, and this repository re-read the
   source at a pinned public commit. Recorded in `source_fidelity.post_extraction_drift`.
2. **Retraction** — this repository described its own provenance wrongly. The stored value may
   have been right all along; the account of where it came from was not. Recorded in
   `source_fidelity.retracted`.
3. **Owner-directed authoring** — the owning runtime decided a value and asked this repository
   to carry it, because the dependency has inverted: the source now reads *this* file and holds
   no literal to re-read. Recorded separately, in `source_fidelity.owner_directed_changes`,
   precisely because calling it drift would assert that the source moved and commons followed —
   which would be false in the one direction that matters.

What is **not** on that list is merit. Data extracted from an implementation is kept
behaviour-identical to it on purpose, because a copy that disagrees with its source is the exact
failure this repository exists to prevent. Producing one as a *fix* would be self-defeating. If
you believe an extracted value is wrong, say so — and expect the decision to be taken in the
runtime where the pattern is under test.

Data **authored here** rather than extracted — conformance payloads, flagged as
`authored_payloads` in `conformance/manifest.json` — is this repository's own to correct.

## Versioning

Two version numbers, and they are not locked to each other:

- **The repository tag** (`vX.Y.Z`) versions **the contract**: the file set, the key names, the
  case ids, the disposition semantics.
- **Each JSON file's own `"version"`** is bumped when *that file* changes.

What counts as which:

| Change | Bump |
| --- | --- |
| New data field, new entry | minor |
| Changed or removed key, case id, or layout | **major** — consumers break |
| A change to what a conforming runtime *finds* | minor in 0.x, and the changelog says so |

That last row is why **the changelog entry is the thing to read before upgrading, not the
version number**. Pre-1.0, a release that changes findings is still a minor bump; only the entry
tells you whether your assertions move.

Consumers vendor **a tag, never `main`** — a conformance result can only be attributed to a tag.
Nothing polls for updates; when a change moves detection data, the maintainer notifies known
consumers directly, and their upgrade remains their own action on their own schedule.

## Checks to run before proposing a change

There is no CI. These four are the validation surface, they run offline in a second, and each
one has been confirmed to go red on a violation rather than merely green on a clean tree.

```bash
# 1. Every JSON file is well-formed
find . -name '*.json' -not -path './.git/*' -print0 \
  | xargs -0 -n1 python3 -m json.tool > /dev/null && echo OK

# 2. Every JSON file outside conformance/ carries a top-level "version"
find . -name '*.json' -not -path './.git/*' -not -path './conformance/*' -print0 \
  | xargs -0 python3 -c 'import json,sys
missing=[p for p in sys.argv[1:] if "version" not in json.load(open(p))]
print("\n".join("MISSING version: "+p for p in missing) or "OK")'

# 3. Every spec carries its normative marker (prints offending files, nothing = clean)
grep -L 'Status: normative' spec/*.md || echo OK

# 4. Charter guard: no executable code has crept in
find . -type f \( -name '*.mjs' -o -name '*.js' -o -name '*.ts' -o -name '*.py' -o -name '*.sh' \) \
  -not -path './.git/*' | grep . && echo 'CHARTER VIOLATION' || echo OK
```

They are written as shell one-liners rather than shipped as a script because a script would be
`.sh`, and check 4 would then fail on the tooling meant to enforce it.

What they do **not** check: whether a value is *correct*. Nothing offline can. That is what the
conformance corpus is for, and it runs in each consumer's own test suite against a pinned tag —
constraining two of the seven data files, which is a real limit and is stated in
[README.md](README.md) under **Known limitations**.