{"neps":[{"n":"0000","slug":"nep-0000-the-nep-process","file":"nep-0000-the-nep-process.md","headline":"The NEP Process","title":"The NEP Process","status":"Active (process NEP · never Final)","type":"Process","created":"2026-07-18","author":"SuperNovae Studio maintainers","lede":"A NEP (Nika Enhancement Proposal) is the public, numbered document through\nwhich every evolution of the Nika standard is proposed, discussed and\ndecided.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"How to propose","anchor":"how-to-propose"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"}],"words":870,"sha256":"891dbe82fd5d050d00fc81ce66718e55be4292c9f3d7f4d68a3b521c9c4557b5"},{"n":"0002","slug":"nep-0002-lethal-trifecta-human-gate","file":"nep-0002-lethal-trifecta-human-gate.md","headline":"Lethal-trifecta detection with a Rule-of-Two human gate","title":"Make the lethal trifecta a static check with a required human gate","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-19","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Add a static check that fires when a workflow's declared capability boundary\ngrants all three legs of the lethal trifecta · private-data access, untrusted-\ncontent ingress, and external egress · without a human gate on the egress path.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1650,"sha256":"bf54b94c1aeb614c6e765e92d30ecb69158acf87589940c38e4d942da4f2c19c"},{"n":"0003","slug":"nep-0003-absent-permits-zero-authority","file":"nep-0003-absent-permits-zero-authority.md","headline":"Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed)","title":"An absent `permits:` block declares zero authority, in every mode","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-22","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Today a workflow with no permits: block runs bounded only by the engine\nfloor: the file carries no authority, so the constitution's first clause\n(zero ambient authority) is true only for annotated files.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1409,"sha256":"8f38ad4f6cdaa3336e776f43335ff2fcfa4db7de3a6912a547eeb32374d41a8a"},{"n":"0004","slug":"nep-0004-permit-parameterization-taint","file":"nep-0004-permit-parameterization-taint.md","headline":"Permit-parameterization taint: untrusted values re-gate under permits","title":"An untrusted value never reaches a permit bound, and reaches a permitted verb's argument only through the re-gate","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-22","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 made the boundary fail-closed when the block is absent.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1842,"sha256":"0e388b555a3ffce4c7cae697067deb944181e50163fbafd1f69d83e670f4e484"},{"n":"0005","slug":"nep-0005-env-permit-dimension","file":"nep-0005-env-permit-dimension.md","headline":"The environment permit: a child's environment is composed, never inherited","title":"`env:` is a permit category: the child process environment is composed from a published floor plus the declared passthrough, never inherited","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 made the absent boundary fail-closed and NEP-0004 made the\npresent boundary honest against attacker-controlled values.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1491,"sha256":"e5fc719bcec4ed72be32303560b38483b16c076f19ac39a5c7b31f2f001561c3"},{"n":"0006","slug":"nep-0006-data-as-code-sink","file":"nep-0006-data-as-code-sink.md","headline":"The data-as-code sink: a fetch of a code-bearing artifact is never innocent","title":"The contract distinguishes inert reads from code-bearing reads: a fetch whose artifact class can execute is refused, unless the read is declared inert","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 sealed the absent boundary, NEP-0004 the values flowing under\nit, NEP-0005 the environment plane.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1230,"sha256":"465beb460148e07bac89375b0876e98b66a2a791ad60bd1bc0e516fc389c5aa6"},{"n":"0007","slug":"nep-0007-trace-format-and-equivalence","file":"nep-0007-trace-format-and-equivalence.md","headline":"The trace leaves the private dialect: a normative journal, a required witness, a differential oracle","title":"The run journal is a versioned chapter of the spec, every permit decision is a required trace frame, and check ⇔ run agreement is proven by a differential oracle","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 through NEP-0006 hardened WHAT the boundary refuses.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1095,"sha256":"730f680968ff38df66acbeecd1d2647a6528789cd0f9bb2d526f01296c5ec3dc"},{"n":"0008","slug":"nep-0008-egress-permit-bound","file":"nep-0008-egress-permit-bound.md","headline":"The sandboxed egress proxy is the permit's exact projection","title":"The sandboxed egress proxy is the exact projection of `permits.net.http` — exact-host allowlists, proxy-side DNS, a normative port floor, one allowlist per run, and no dead grants","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 through NEP-0006 hardened WHAT the boundary refuses; NEP-0007\nmade the refusal attributable.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred (P2, by decision)","anchor":"deferred-p2-by-decision"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1189,"sha256":"7193b92df0e733bf9f0a85d812e697187c2cbdcf6a357db61f5ee8d02a988017"},{"n":"0009","slug":"nep-0009-effective-path-identity","file":"nep-0009-effective-path-identity.md","headline":"A path grant names an effective path identity, re-judged at dispatch","title":"A path grant names an effective path identity, re-judged at dispatch — escape is refused, never rewritten, on every enforcement arm","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"NEP-0003 decided WHAT the boundary grants; NEP-0008 projected that\njudgment onto network egress.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred (named follow-ons)","anchor":"deferred-named-follow-ons"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1005,"sha256":"03c85cceb829958b2f7cba3598090dc657252d8d96445a73f088d742d4ee32f3"},{"n":"0010","slug":"nep-0010-run-entropy-clock","file":"nep-0010-run-entropy-clock.md","headline":"The run declares its entropy and its clock","title":"Every source of randomness and time is declared at the envelope's `run:` block — entropy and clock are contract inputs, never ambient facts","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-23","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"A run's determinism class (δ) is only meaningful if the sources of\nnon-determinism are named.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred (P2)","anchor":"deferred-p2"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1058,"sha256":"ff88a24b3c2a449463516ca1f6e5b137ff93bcd33391d83ab67a96b3c86c9f43"},{"n":"0011","slug":"nep-0011-run-lifecycle-attestation","file":"nep-0011-run-lifecycle-attestation.md","headline":"The run has an attested beginning and an attested end","title":"The run's lifecycle is attested — a boot manifest binds the run to its judgment, the teardown seal binds the outcome to its evidence, and an unterminated journal is the VERIFIER's finding, never the dying process's silence","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-24","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"A trace can prove single frames, but the RUN as a whole has no attested\nlifecycle: nothing binds what nika check judged to what actually\nboots, the seal covers the journal but not the receipt it summarizes,\nand a run killed mid-flight simply stops — a silence a reader can\nmistake for success.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred (P2)","anchor":"deferred-p2"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1438,"sha256":"0d0666b83e08d3b1164d782a531aa067ed7ea07928dfc8326fe11c61ffcbc186"},{"n":"0012","slug":"nep-0012-receipt-untrusted-input","file":"nep-0012-receipt-untrusted-input.md","headline":"The receipt is untrusted input","title":"The verifier is a fortress — decode bounds are spec constants, terminal output is escaped, malicious artifacts are recognized rather than repaired, and two independent decoders must agree","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-24","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"The trace, the receipt and the seal exist to be VERIFIED — which means\nthe verifier is the one component guaranteed to parse attacker-supplied\nbytes.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred (P2)","anchor":"deferred-p2"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":849,"sha256":"ffd9b327a7f41cc72a74c9052062804ae01c2f1656329f94b11627b7ec8637ac"},{"n":"0013","slug":"nep-0013-approval-ticket","file":"nep-0013-approval-ticket.md","headline":"Human approval is a bounded, content-bound, attested ticket","title":"Human approval is a bounded, content-bound, attested ticket — the shown is the signed, scoped, TTL'd, rate-limited, and chained into the journal","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-24","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"The human gate is the last unbounded authority surface in the engine:\nan approval is a bare answer to a prompt — nothing binds what was shown\nto what was signed, nothing bounds a burst, and nothing attests the\ndecision in the journal.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred","anchor":"deferred"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":930,"sha256":"b0e0aebdc9c2bd94d593e50ff6533e81d04140ee85ac22627cc7f2375f3260b4"},{"n":"0014","slug":"nep-0014-thin-laws","file":"nep-0014-thin-laws.md","headline":"The thin-laws (lot 3a): observable independence · input origins · the readable receipt · cross-version resume","title":"Four small laws of the contract — two incomparable tasks never share a write, every run input carries its origin, every receipt field carries a readable projection, and a resume across engine versions is explicit","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Four laws too small for their own NEPs and too real to stay unwritten.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":875,"sha256":"7ccae7059e1f254a09174f6377bf91c4f9e83a37e2cdd1226e4659f9b4314d45"},{"n":"0015","slug":"nep-0015-preview-commit","file":"nep-0015-preview-commit.md","headline":"Preview-commit: the effect request is hashed at judgment and recomputed at the sink","title":"Preview-commit — every effectful step carries the digest of its judged request, the executor recomputes it on the exact bytes it fires, and one bit of divergence is a refusal","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"An effectful step (exec · invoke) is judged twice today — statically\nat check and against the permit boundary at dispatch — but what is judged\nis the program and the globs, never the rendered request.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred","anchor":"deferred"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1247,"sha256":"82704ef11e63932a22038202933fcc402b79e46c91b5b3c89518be95f9a7fd7f"},{"n":"0016","slug":"nep-0016-provenance-tiers","file":"nep-0016-provenance-tiers.md","headline":"Provenance tiers: every registry artifact resolves with a measured tier, and the admission floor is operator data","title":"Provenance tiers — a closed ladder (`unprovenanced < provenanced < stage-clear < verified`) admitted by evidence only, an operator-owned admission floor, and the tier recorded at fetch and attested at the receipt","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Today the registry resolver proves two things — content integrity (the\npinned digest) and, for signed entries, origin (minisign under a\nTOFU-anchored publisher key) — but it speaks a bare boolean, lets no\noperator set an admission floor, and records nothing a receipt can\nattest.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Deferred","anchor":"deferred"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":1236,"sha256":"70d585f99eb121dfbe64cb73de75a1986021f8cb7398865618a897002807bf17"},{"n":"0017","slug":"nep-0017-thin-laws-3b","file":"nep-0017-thin-laws-3b.md","headline":"The thin-laws (lot 3b): the pricing table in the pin · the end obligation · the third blame polarity · the named solo endorsement","title":"Four more small laws — the versioned pricing table rides the semantic pin, a failed run owes an attested quarantine, a normalization default is blamed on the contract that declares it, and a one-endorser action names its mode","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"The second batch of laws too small for their own NEPs and too real to\nstay ambient — the continuation NEP-0014's Reference Implementation\nannounced.","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Rationale","anchor":"rationale"},{"title":"Backwards Compatibility","anchor":"backwards-compatibility"},{"title":"Reference Implementation","anchor":"reference-implementation"},{"title":"Copyright","anchor":"copyright"}],"words":996,"sha256":"1db2cf1f1f017ccbe6d2948a77de07441df515f4bbf451cf2d9a18faba3caae2"},{"n":"0018","slug":"nep-0018-energy-honesty","file":"nep-0018-energy-honesty.md","headline":"Energy honesty — the cost doctrine, transposed to watt-hours","title":"Extend cost honesty to energy: floors, ceilings, UNBOUNDED, and never a fabricated zero","status":"Draft","type":"Standards Track","created":"2026-07-29","author":"Thibaut Melen (SuperNovae Studio)","lede":"Give energy the exact doctrine cost already has: a static ENERGY reading\nbeside COST, speaking the same four words — floor · ceiling ·\nUNBOUNDED · unpriced — over the catalog's sourced watt-hour facts, with\nunknown stays unknown as the governing law (an energy Nika cannot prove\nis never rendered as 0 Wh, a local model is unpriced — your watts —\nnever « free »).","sections":[{"title":"Abstract","anchor":"abstract"},{"title":"Motivation","anchor":"motivation"},{"title":"Specification","anchor":"specification"},{"title":"Conformance test","anchor":"conformance-test"},{"title":"Compatibility impact","anchor":"compatibility-impact"},{"title":"Migration plan","anchor":"migration-plan"},{"title":"Rejected alternatives","anchor":"rejected-alternatives"}],"words":1414,"sha256":"06b456666c61922f8fb84284661e9567e54ecb33d42628666fddc953ae17edf3"}],"pin":{"spec_commit":"6ac29351a878e3dfab43c0f4f6599f9f8a46fe27","spec_tree":"5f7143362bc14595489f98cced96605ec0044ea8"},"counts":{"Active (process NEP · never Final)":1,"Draft":17}}

governance

Nobody amends the standard directly.

Every evolution of the language is a NEP: a numbered, public, git-versioned document that argues its case before anything changes. The maintainers are bound by it too. Most of these carry Draft, and that is the normal state of a proposal in a standards process: the number exists so the argument can be cited while it is still being had.

18proposalsnumbered and public
17standards trackthey change the language
1processthey change the process
gitthe archivenothing is amended in place

the proposals

Read them in order

NEP-0000 is the process itself: what a proposal must argue, who decides, and what happens to a rejected one. The rest are numbered in the order they were opened.

NEP-0000The NEP Process
Active (process NEP · never Final) · Process · 2026-07-18 · 6 sections
NEP-0002Lethal-trifecta detection with a Rule-of-Two human gate
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-19 · 7 sections
NEP-0003Absent permits: means zero authority (fail-closed)
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-22 · 7 sections
NEP-0004Permit-parameterization taint: untrusted values re-gate under permits
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-22 · 7 sections
NEP-0005The environment permit: a child's environment is composed, never inherited
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 7 sections
NEP-0006The data-as-code sink: a fetch of a code-bearing artifact is never innocent
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 7 sections
NEP-0007The trace leaves the private dialect: a normative journal, a required witness, a differential oracle
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 6 sections
NEP-0008The sandboxed egress proxy is the permit's exact projection
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 8 sections
NEP-0009A path grant names an effective path identity, re-judged at dispatch
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 8 sections
NEP-0010The run declares its entropy and its clock
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-23 · 8 sections
NEP-0011The run has an attested beginning and an attested end
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-24 · 8 sections
NEP-0012The receipt is untrusted input
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-24 · 8 sections
NEP-0013Human approval is a bounded, content-bound, attested ticket
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-24 · 8 sections
NEP-0014The thin-laws (lot 3a): observable independence · input origins · the readable receipt · cross-version resume
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-29 · 7 sections
NEP-0015Preview-commit: the effect request is hashed at judgment and recomputed at the sink
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-29 · 9 sections
NEP-0016Provenance tiers: every registry artifact resolves with a measured tier, and the admission floor is operator data
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-29 · 9 sections
NEP-0017The thin-laws (lot 3b): the pricing table in the pin · the end obligation · the third blame polarity · the named solo endorsement
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-29 · 7 sections
NEP-0018Energy honesty — the cost doctrine, transposed to watt-hours
Draft · Standards Track · 2026-07-29 · 7 sections

The specification they amend Propose one