Skip to content

launch.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
98 lines (86 loc) · 6.09 KB

launch.md

File metadata and controls

98 lines (86 loc) · 6.09 KB
Raw

The pre-launch gate and the announcement plan

A project that attracts attention before it can absorb it dies of that attention. This document is the gate (#291): nothing is announced until every box below is ticked. When a box is ticked it gets its evidence link, and the gate itself ratchets — a box can be ticked, but the gate cannot be quietly removed from the repo that needs it (tests/test_launch_gate.py pins it). The plan below the gate is what happens after the last box, in the order given, and never before.

The gate

  • Phase 6 fully closed — licence detected by GitHub (Apache-2.0), description and topics set, SECURITY.md with private-vulnerability reporting enabled, the positioning statement ("not a fatwa engine") in the README's first screen. Milestone 9 closed with all four issues done (#296–#298 and the licence work).
  • Phase 7 fully closed — the README rewritten for the stranger (#300), CONTRIBUTING.md at the documentation standard (#299), the Contributor Covenant with the religious-disagreement stance (#302), issue/PR templates (#303), Discussions live with a Compliance & classification category, and nine real good first issues (#308–#316) plus help-wanted on the deeper ones. Milestone 10 closed.
  • The fiqh basis published — docs/fiqh-basis.md: every encoded ruling with its in-repo source, attested-vs-computed, the open questions, how to disagree (#317/#288).
  • The scholarly-review stance decided and stated honestly — "No scholarly review of keel's fiqh basis has occurred," the review path defined, the outreach shortlist in the document as a plan, not a claim (#318/#289).
  • The Arabic entry point — README.ar.md with the switcher, terminology exact, scope stated (#319/#290).
  • CI green on main — both matrix legs (3.11, 3.14; the legs came in #301), and the merge gate (test context) has been the required context since #268.
  • The code-quality scans actually configured — tokenless and always on (#320): Dependabot over every manifest, a weekly pip-audit over the exported lock, CodeQL on Python. code-quality.yml remains the optional Sonar/Snyk tier for if those tokens are ever created. Open item to verify after the announcement lull: the five packages/* Dependabot entries share the root uv.lock — confirm they are live in the Dependabot log; if inert, collapse to the root entry.
  • A maintainer response commitment that is honest for one person, stated in CONTRIBUTING.md — issues triaged within 3 days, PRs first-reviewed within a week, security routed to SECURITY.md's SLA.

The audience, in order

Small, high-trust communities beat a broad launch: one credible post in the right room outperforms a Show HN, and a Show HN first is the failure mode this ordering exists to prevent. One venue at a time, and answer every reply in the first 48 hours — attention that goes unanswered dies unanswered.

  1. Islamic fintech practitioner networks (IFN and similar): the people whose day job is exactly this problem, who will read the screening axes before the trading code.
  2. r/islamicfinance, Muslim developer Discord and Telegram groups: the audience the Arabic README exists for; post the honest result in the first paragraph.
  3. Islamic finance programmes — IIUM, INCEIF, Durham: the same shortlist as the scholarly-review outreach; a review may start as a conversation a post begins.
  4. Only then: Hacker News / Reddit / Lobsters — after the smaller rooms have found the repo, so the first wave of questions comes from people who already understand what "not a fatwa engine" means.

What the announcement must say

Lead with the compliance engine, not the trading bot. State the measured result in the post itself — no shipped rule family is net-positive at the taker fee actually paid: 0 of 90 and 0 of 82 under production-faithful execution (the experiment record). Being the one who says it first is the whole credibility play; a post that hides the result hands it to the first commenter. Say the boundary and the stance plainly too — keel is not a fatwa engine, and No scholarly review of keel's fiqh basis has occurred — and point at what is asked for: the good first issues, the review path, the Arabic README.

The draft, ready to adapt

I built an open-source Shariah-compliance engine for spot crypto trading — not a trading bot with a halal coat of paint, but the compliance machinery: allowlist admission where Shariah classifications are attested with a source and never inferred from market data, a fails-closed screen, eighteen un-overridable safety rails including §65.4 qabd (constructive possession) encoded as an executable check, and an audit trail of who attested what.

The honest measured result, stated up front: no shipped rule family is net-positive at the taker fee actually paid — 0 of 90 and 0 of 82 under production-faithful execution. The project's point is the enforcement machinery and the honest measurement, not a claim of alpha.

Two things it is not: keel is not a fatwa engine. It is an enforcement engine for a ruling you supply. So two operators following different schools get different answers from the same code, by design. And no scholarly review of keel's fiqh basis has occurred — the basis is one operator's sourced reading, published as docs/fiqh-basis.md precisely so it can be audited and challenged; the review path is defined and the review itself is not claimed.

There is an Arabic entry point (README.ar.md), the fiqh basis document with its sources, and good-first-issues open. If you want an auditable screening engine and are willing to help build one: https://github.com/CodeGateSoftware/keel

The non-goal

Do not announce to get stars. Announce to find the handful of people who want an auditable Shariah screening engine and will help build one — a hundred quiet readers who check the sources beat a thousand who upvote the title.