# Aphoria

**A code-level truth linter powered by Episteme.**

Aphoria scans your codebase for configuration patterns that contradict authoritative technical standards (RFCs, OWASP, vendor docs). Unlike linters that check syntax or SAST tools that find vulnerability patterns, Aphoria validates **intent against authority**.

```bash
$ aphoria scan .

BLOCK  code://python/requests/tls/cert_verification
       Your code:  verify=False (api/client.py:42)
       RFC 5246:   TLS certificate verification MUST be enabled
       Conflict:   0.92

1 conflict found (1 BLOCK).
```

---

## Quick Start

### Install

```bash
# From source
cd applications/aphoria
cargo install --path .

# Verify
aphoria --version
```

### Initialize

```bash
aphoria init
```

This loads the authoritative corpus (RFCs, OWASP guidelines) into your local database.

### Scan

```bash
# Quick scan (ephemeral, fast)
aphoria scan .

# With persistence (enables diff/baseline)
aphoria scan --persist

# CI mode (exit code 1 on BLOCK)
aphoria scan --exit-code

# Pre-commit (staged files only)
aphoria scan --staged --exit-code
```

### Handle Conflicts

**Fix the code:**
```python
# Before: verify=False
# After:
requests.get(url, verify=True)
```

**Or acknowledge intentionally:**
```bash
aphoria ack "code://python/requests/tls/cert_verification" \
  --reason "Local dev environment with self-signed certs"
```

---

## Key Concepts: Observations vs Claims

Aphoria distinguishes between two types of extracted information:

| Type | What it is | Who creates it | Example |
|------|-----------|----------------|---------|
| **Observation** | Pattern match: "this code does X" | Extractors (automated) | `imports/tokio: true` |
| **Claim** | Rule: "code MUST do X because Y" | Humans (you!) | "Core MUST NOT import tokio because it creates runtime coupling" |

**Observations** are what extractors find - they're grep results with confidence scores. They have no opinion about whether something is good or bad.

**Claims** are human-authored rules with:
- **Provenance** - Where the rule came from (RFC, security review, architecture decision)
- **Invariant** - What must stay true ("Wallet MUST NOT derive Clone")
- **Consequence** - What breaks if violated ("Multiple wallet instances → double-spend")
- **Authority tier** - How much weight this rule carries
- **Evidence** - Supporting artifacts (ADRs, test cases, etc.)

When you run `aphoria scan`, it compares observations against both:
1. **Authoritative corpus** (RFCs, OWASP) - Built-in claims
2. **Your authored claims** - Project-specific rules in `.aphoria/claims.toml`

See [Claims-Based Verification](#claims-based-verification) below for creating your own claims.

---

## Output Formats

```bash
aphoria scan --format table     # Human-readable (default)
aphoria scan --format json      # Machine-readable
aphoria scan --format sarif     # GitHub Security tab
aphoria scan --format markdown  # Documentation
```

---

## Pre-commit Integration

```yaml
# .pre-commit-config.yaml
repos:
  - repo: local
    hooks:
      - id: aphoria
        name: Aphoria truth check
        entry: aphoria scan --staged --exit-code
        language: system
        pass_filenames: false
```

---

## CI Integration (GitHub Actions)

```yaml
- name: Install Aphoria
  run: cargo install --path applications/aphoria

- name: Run Aphoria Scan
  run: aphoria scan --exit-code --format sarif > results.sarif

- name: Upload SARIF
  uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v2
  with:
    sarif_file: results.sarif
```

---

## Key Commands

### Scanning
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `aphoria scan` | Scan for conflicts with authoritative sources |
| `aphoria ack` | Acknowledge a conflict as intentional |
| `aphoria bless` | Define a pattern as your authoritative standard |

### Claims Management
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `aphoria claims create` | Author a new claim with provenance and consequences |
| `aphoria claims list` | List all authored claims |
| `aphoria claims explain` | Generate detailed claim explanations |
| `aphoria claims update` | Update an existing claim |
| `aphoria claims supersede` | Mark claim as superseded by newer claim |
| `aphoria claims deprecate` | Deprecate a claim with reason |

### Inline Markers
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `aphoria claims list-markers` | List pending inline claim markers |
| `aphoria claims formalize-marker` | Convert marker to full claim |
| `aphoria claims reject-marker` | Reject an inline marker |

### Verification
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `aphoria verify run` | Verify authored claims against codebase |
| `aphoria verify map` | Show extractor-to-claim coverage map |

### Policy & Governance
| Command | Description |
|---------|-------------|
| `aphoria policy export` | Export standards as a Trust Pack |
| `aphoria policy import` | Import a Trust Pack from your security team |
| `aphoria governance pending` | List approval requests (Phase 14) |
| `aphoria audit export` | Export audit trail for SOC 2 compliance |

See [CLI Reference](docs/cli-reference.md) for complete command documentation.

---

## Claims-Based Verification

Beyond scanning for RFC/OWASP conflicts, Aphoria supports **human-authored claims** that encode your project's architectural decisions and safety invariants.

### Quick Example

```bash
# Author a claim
aphoria claims create \
  --id wallet-no-clone-001 \
  --concept-path maxwell/core/wallet/type/wallet/derives \
  --predicate traits \
  --value Clone \
  --comparison not_contains \
  --provenance "Wallet is singleton with atomic state" \
  --invariant "Wallet type MUST NOT derive Clone" \
  --consequence "Clone allows multiple instances, breaking single-balance invariant" \
  --tier expert \
  --category safety \
  --by jml

# Verify claim against codebase
aphoria verify run

# Output:
# PASS  wallet-no-clone-001 | maxwell/core/wallet/type/wallet/derives/traits
#       Clone not found (as expected)
```

### Comparison Modes

Claims support six comparison modes for different verification patterns:

- `equals` - Value must be exactly X
- `not_equals` - Value must NOT be X
- `present` - Something must exist at this path
- `absent` - Nothing should exist at this path
- `contains` - Value must contain substring/list element (e.g., "Serialize" in "Clone,Debug,Serialize")
- `not_contains` - Value must NOT contain substring/list element (e.g., "Clone" NOT in derives)

See [Comparison Modes Guide](docs/comparison-modes.md) for detailed examples and decision tree.

### Inline Markers

Mark claims directly in code with special comments:

```rust
// @aphoria:claim[safety] Wallet MUST NOT derive Clone
#[derive(Debug)]
pub struct Wallet { ... }
```

Then formalize them:
```bash
aphoria claims list-markers
aphoria claims formalize-marker marker-001 --id wallet-no-clone-001 --by jml
```

### Git Commit Tracking

Aphoria automatically captures the git commit hash when claims and observations are ingested. This provides:
- **Temporal context** - Know exactly which code version a claim was authored against
- **Audit trail** - Trace architectural decisions through git history
- **Graceful degradation** - Works seamlessly in non-git environments

The commit hash is stored in assertion metadata and captured at ingestion time (not when TOML files are edited), avoiding the "double-commit problem."

```json
{
  "authored": true,
  "git_commit": "de7af7c1b9e...",
  "claim_id": "wallet-no-clone-001",
  "provenance": "Wallet is singleton with atomic state"
}
```

---

## Conflict Verdicts

| Verdict | Description | CI Behavior |
|---------|-------------|-------------|
| **BLOCK** | High-confidence conflict with RFC/OWASP | Fails with `--exit-code` |
| **FLAG** | Moderate-confidence conflict | Passes, visible in report |
| **ACK** | Acknowledged conflict | Passes, tracked for audit |
| **PASS** | No conflict | - |

---

## Web Dashboard

Aphoria includes a web-based dashboard for visualizing scan results, managing claims, and exploring the authoritative corpus. See [`applications/aphoria-dashboard/`](../aphoria-dashboard/) for setup instructions.

Features:
- Real-time scan visualization
- Claims management interface
- Corpus exploration and search
- Policy governance workflows

---

## Documentation

### Guides
| Guide | Audience | Time |
|-------|----------|------|
| [Solo Developer Guide](docs/guides/solo-developer-guide.md) | Individual developers, side projects | 2 min |
| [Enterprise Pilot Guide](docs/guides/enterprise-pilot-guide.md) | Security teams running pilots | 4 weeks |
| [Enterprise Quick Start](docs/guides/enterprise-quick-start.md) | Platform engineering | 5 min |
| [The First Scan](docs/guides/the-first-scan.md) | Everyone | 10 min |

### Reference
| Document | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| [CLI Reference](docs/cli-reference.md) | Complete command documentation |
| [Comparison Modes](docs/comparison-modes.md) | Guide to claim comparison modes |
| [Vision & Gaps](docs/vision-gaps.md) | Architecture and implementation status |

---

## Research & Reference

### Vision & Architecture
| Document | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| [Vision](vision.md) | Product vision and aspirational architecture |
| [Protocol Vision](protocol_vision.md) | Protocol-level design philosophy |
| [Vision & Gaps](docs/vision-gaps.md) | Honest assessment of current state vs. vision |
| [Architecture Docs](docs/architecture/README.md) | System design, concept matching, extension points |

### Testing & Validation
| Document | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| [UAT Reports](../../uat/README.md) | User acceptance testing results |
| [Phase 6 UAT](../../uat/phase6-uat.md) | Detailed validation of policy workflows |
| [Real-World Policy Source UAT](../../uat/2026-02-04-uat-real-world-policy-source.md) | Trust Pack workflow validation |

### Gap Analysis & Research
| Document | Description |
|----------|-------------|
| [Gap Analysis: Institutional Knowledge](docs/gap-analysis-institutional-knowledge.md) | Analysis of knowledge capture gaps |
| [Gap Fixes Summary](docs/gap-fixes-summary.md) | Summary of addressed gaps |

---

## What Aphoria Is Not

- **Not a linter.** Linters check syntax. Aphoria checks decisions against authoritative sources.
- **Not SAST.** SAST finds vulnerability patterns. Aphoria finds contradictions to specific standards.
- **Not AI autocomplete.** Copilot suggests code from the internet. Aphoria surfaces *your org's* decisions at the moment you contradict them.

---

## License

See [LICENSE](../../LICENSE) for details.