Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Decide the provenance policy for generated packs and research signing

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#55 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
25/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
github-actions, typescript
Domain
documentation, release

Research direction

Read docs/adr/0010-content-licensing.md, docs/authoring/pipeline.md, and CONTRIBUTING.md to understand the current provenance policy, then inspect .github/workflows/release.yml and packages/cli/src/generate/pipeline.ts for signing context. Compare the disclosure options and artifact attestation approaches, including offline verification and cost. Done means an accepted ADR, aligned contributor and pipeline documentation, and a signing research note with a recommendation.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

area: community area: pipeline priority: medium type: decision

Context

author and generator are free text. By repository policy, design/run.json records no model identifiers, so reviewers learn which model wrote a pack only if the pull request says so. ADR 0010 lists open questions on structured provenance and on signing in the community pipeline.

Options

Disclosure:

  • A. Status quo: free text in the pack; the model is optional in the pull request.
  • B. Structured generator fields as an additive format change: pipeline, humanEdited (none, light, substantial), an optional model, a date.
  • C. The model is disclosed in the generated pull request and its run artifacts, not in the pack.

Signing research: GitHub artifact attestations for compiled .lexpack.json files built by the release and generation workflows; whether the player could verify anything offline, or verification stays in CI and the CLI.

Scope

  • Decide the disclosure policy, including whether run.json may record model identifiers, and record it in an ADR.
  • Update CONTRIBUTING.md, docs/authoring/pipeline.md and the references in ADR 0010.
  • If B: spec, schema and prompt kit changes in a follow-up pull request.
  • A short signing research note with a recommendation; if positive, a prototype attestation for release assets.

Acceptance criteria

  • An ADR on the provenance policy is accepted.
  • CONTRIBUTING.md and docs/authoring/pipeline.md match the decision.
  • The signing research note covers the options, offline verification, cost and a recommendation.

References

  • docs/adr/0010-content-licensing.md (Open questions)
  • docs/authoring/pipeline.md (Provenance, design/run.json)
  • CONTRIBUTING.md (Contributing a content pack)
  • .github/workflows/release.yml
  • packages/cli/src/generate/pipeline.ts
Dominant language
TypeScript
Stars
0
Forks
0
Avg merge
28m
Merged PRs (30d)
2

Getting set up

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from nullthrone/lexvm

All issues in nullthrone/lexvm

Similar issues

More TypeScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.