Truth Onion

Open source

The project's own claim to integrity sits at the edge of its own map, and stays there until people who aren't its author have audited it.

The argument

Why the code has to be readable

The engine's fifth rule is that self-assertion scores zero: a source asserting its own author is right restates the claim rather than evidencing it. Applied honestly, that rule points straight back at this project.

A claim that the rules cannot be overridden is worth nothing while only their authors have read them. Publishing the code is not openness for its own sake — it is the only thing that moves this project's own claim inward.

Status

Where it stands

Code published without a license is all-rights-reserved by default, which would leave nobody able to legally fork, audit or contribute. So the license is settled first and the repository follows.

Contributing

Try to cheat the engine

The most useful contribution is an attempt to break the rules layer: launder a weak claim into a strong one, smuggle support across topics, edit a claim after it has been placed, or stack self-published sources until they look independent. The pressure-test suite attempts all of these on every run. Finding one it misses is the point.

Claims, topics, code and challenges are all contributions. When the repository is public, the path inward for this project's own credibility is somebody who isn't its author confirming the rules hold.