oasd

# Self-directed draft: Solana payout CSV preflight **Product spec · Proposed, not implemented** **Audience:** Solana teams that prepare contributor payouts in a spreadsheet. **Goal:** Answer “Does this file match the payout I approved?” before it reaches a payment tool. Produce a review report, not a transaction. No wallet connection, RPC calls, or signing. ### Inputs The reviewer enters the expected token mint, decimal precision, recipient count, and total amount from the approval record. Separately, they load a CSV with three required columns: `recipient,mint,amount`. One file represents one token; one row represents one recipient wallet. ### Review rules - Parse the CSV locally. Reject missing or repeated headers, empty required fields, and malformed records. Show the record number and reason for each error. - Require recipient and mint strings to decode from base58 to exactly 32 bytes. Compare each mint with the approved mint by decoded value. This checks address format, not ownership or mint metadata. - Accept amounts only as positive plain decimal strings. Reject signs, exponents, separators, and more fractional digits than the approved precision. Convert to integer base units before summing; never round. - Flag repeated recipient addresses and cite **both records**. Do not merge rows or discard duplicates. - Report actual versus approved count and total. If any amount is invalid, show the actual total as **unavailable**, not as a partial sum. ### Review output Show **File matches approval fields** only when every rule passes. Otherwise show **Needs correction** and a downloadable text report of discrepancies. Keep full addresses visible for comparison. Process and export locally; do not persist uploaded files. **Acceptance example:** Approval specifies two recipients and `3.00` tokens at precision `2`. Two rows pay `1.25` and `1.75` to the same address. The report must show `300 / 300` base units, `1 / 2` distinct recipients, and a duplicate error naming both rows. A matching total must not hide a missing payee. **Boundary:** A different but well-formed recipient could still pass. The reviewer must compare addresses with the approved roster; this report is not payout authorization.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Integration Readiness Checklist **Format:** Reusable engineering checklist **Status:** Proposed; not validated **Audience:** Teams integrating a Solana program, wallet flow, or transaction-building library ## Goal Catch integration failures before release by checking account layouts, instruction construction, transaction limits, and user-facing error handling. ## Checklist ### Program and accounts - [ ] Record program ID and cluster configuration per environment. - [ ] Confirm every instruction’s required accounts, signer flags, and writable flags. - [ ] Validate account ownership before decoding data. - [ ] Handle missing, closed, or unexpectedly initialized accounts. - [ ] Version account schemas and document upgrade assumptions. - [ ] Never request private keys, seed phrases, or signing material. ### Instruction construction - [ ] Use explicit instruction builders rather than ad hoc byte arrays. - [ ] Validate numeric inputs, public keys, and optional accounts before building. - [ ] Derive PDA addresses from documented seeds and verify expected bump behavior. - [ ] Simulate or otherwise test representative instructions before presenting them to users. - [ ] Ensure retry logic does not duplicate non-idempotent actions. ### Transaction assembly - [ ] Set a deliberate fee-payer and recent block reference. - [ ] Estimate transaction size and account limits for worst-case inputs. - [ ] Decide how priority-fee configuration is supplied and displayed. - [ ] Handle block-reference expiry with a clear rebuild path. - [ ] Distinguish signing, submission, confirmation, and program-level failure states. ### Wallet and UX - [ ] Show the network/cluster before signing. - [ ] Summarize the action, relevant accounts, and expected user cost. - [ ] Disable duplicate submission while a request is pending. - [ ] Preserve a safe, non-secret diagnostic record when a flow fails. - [ ] Provide a recovery action instead of only displaying raw errors. ### Testing - [ ] Test success, rejected signature, expired block reference, insufficient funds, invalid account, and program error cases. - [ ] Test wallet disconnects and account changes mid-flow. - [ ] Test malformed or stale cached account data. - [ ] Verify logs redact secrets and sensitive user data. - [ ] Run tests against every supported cluster configuration. ## Release gate Do not ship until each unchecked item is either completed or documented as an intentional limitation with an owner and follow-up date.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Health Snapshot **Format:** Concise product specification **Status:** Proposed; implementation not started **Audience:** Solana app teams diagnosing intermittent RPC or latency issues ## Problem Teams often lack a consistent, privacy-conscious way to capture the RPC conditions surrounding a user-facing issue. Build a small diagnostic page that records request timing and configuration without requesting wallet secrets or transaction signing. ## MVP behavior A user clicks **Run diagnostics**. The page performs read-only checks against the app’s configured RPC endpoint and displays: - Endpoint label chosen by the app team - Request duration for a basic health/readiness call - Whether the response was successful - Client timestamp and browser timezone - App version and network configuration supplied by the app - A copyable support report The tool must not request a seed phrase, private key, wallet signature, or funds. ## Suggested report format ```text RPC Diagnostic Report Generated: [local timestamp] App version: [version] Cluster label: [configured label] RPC label: [configured label] Checks: - Basic connectivity: PASS / FAIL - Response time: [duration] ms - Read-only request: PASS / FAIL - Error category: [timeout / HTTP / RPC / parsing / unknown] Notes: [User-provided description] ``` ## UX requirements 1. Explain that diagnostics are read-only before running. 2. Show progress for each check. 3. Distinguish “request failed” from “request succeeded with an application error.” 4. Provide **Copy report** and **Clear report** actions. 5. Avoid automatically uploading results; make sharing user-initiated. 6. Redact query parameters or headers that could contain credentials. 7. Provide a plain-language next step for each error category. ## Minimal implementation shape ```ts type DiagnosticResult = { name: string; status: "pass" | "fail"; durationMs?: number; category?: "timeout" | "http" | "rpc" | "parse" | "unknown"; detail?: string; }; type DiagnosticReport = { generatedAt: string; appVersion: string; clusterLabel: string; rpcLabel: string; checks: DiagnosticResult[]; userNote?: string; }; ``` ## Acceptance criteria - No wallet connection is required. - No signing or state-changing instruction is created. - A failed check still produces a copyable report. - The report contains no secret material by design. - Network and endpoint labels come from explicit configuration, not assumptions. - The diagnostic flow can be disabled or replaced per deployment environment.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Triage Card **Format:** Reusable support template **Status:** Proposed; not tested **Audience:** Solana app teams handling failed-transaction reports ## Purpose Turn “my transaction failed” into a reproducible engineering ticket without collecting wallet secrets or guessing what happened. ## Intake form Copy into your support workflow: ```text Action attempted: Expected result: Observed result / exact error: Approximate time and time zone: App version or build: Wallet app and version: Network selected: Transaction signature, if available: Did the wallet show a signing prompt? Yes / No Did the user approve it? Yes / No Does the app show pending, failed, or completed? Reproduction steps: Frequency: Once / Intermittent / Every attempt ``` **Privacy note:** Never request seed phrases, private keys, credentials, or signing access. Share transaction signatures privately when possible; they can expose public wallet activity. Redact personal information and RPC API keys from screenshots and logs. ## Triage decision tree | Evidence | Investigate next | Avoid concluding | |---|---|---| | No wallet prompt appeared | Connection state, client validation, transaction construction | “The network rejected it” | | User rejected the prompt | Cancellation handling and recovery copy | “The program failed” | | Approved, but no signature recorded | Wallet response, submission errors, client logging | “Nothing was submitted” | | Signature exists; status unknown | Intended cluster, RPC response, confirmation handling | “Safe to retry” | | Transaction has an execution error | Logs, failing instruction, decoded program error | Root cause from error text alone | | Transaction succeeded; UI disagrees | State refresh, indexing delay, app interpretation | “Success means the intended outcome occurred” | **Retry rule:** Before recommending another submission, establish the original transaction’s status and whether repeating the action could duplicate an effect. Do not automatically retry ambiguous cases. ## Engineering handoff ```text Issue title: User impact: Failure stage: Client / Wallet / Submission / Execution / Confirmation / Display / Unknown Evidence: - Signature and cluster: - Exact error: - Relevant redacted logs: - Reproduction steps: Confirmed observations: Working hypothesis: Missing evidence: Next diagnostic action: Owner: User-facing update: ``` Keep observations and hypotheses separate. “RPC request timed out” is an observation; “transaction never landed” requires additional evidence. ## Ready-to-use support reply > Thanks for reporting this. Please share the action you attempted, the exact error, your wallet app, the selected network, and a transaction signature if one is available. Never share your recovery phrase or private key. If the status is unclear, please avoid repeating the action until we check whether it completed. ## Completion checklist - [ ] Failure stage identified, or explicitly marked unknown. - [ ] Original transaction status checked before retry guidance. - [ ] Secrets and unnecessary personal data removed. - [ ] Ticket contains a reproduction or a specific evidence gap. - [ ] User receives a clear next step without an unsupported diagnosis.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Release Readiness Checklist **Format:** Reusable checklist **Status:** Proposed; not validated **Use:** Before releasing a Solana program, SDK, or client integration ## 1. Scope and safety - [ ] Define the exact release contents and supported environments. - [ ] Confirm program IDs, cluster settings, and authority accounts are explicit. - [ ] Separate development, staging, and production configuration. - [ ] Document upgrade, pause, and emergency-response procedures. - [ ] Review signer permissions and remove unnecessary authority access. ## 2. Program validation - [ ] Run unit tests for success paths and expected failures. - [ ] Test malformed accounts, incorrect owners, missing signers, and boundary values. - [ ] Check account initialization, resizing, closing, and rent assumptions. - [ ] Verify PDA seeds and bump handling. - [ ] Test replay, duplicate, and stale-instruction scenarios where relevant. - [ ] Confirm error codes are stable and documented. ## 3. Client and SDK validation - [ ] Regenerate or review the IDL after program changes. - [ ] Test serialization and deserialization for every public instruction. - [ ] Confirm clients reject mismatched cluster or program configuration. - [ ] Add readable handling for common transaction failures. - [ ] Verify retry behavior does not duplicate unsafe operations. - [ ] Pin dependency versions used in release builds. ## 4. Transaction operations - [ ] Simulate representative transactions before submission. - [ ] Set compute-budget and priority-fee behavior deliberately. - [ ] Handle blockhash expiry with bounded retries. - [ ] Confirm confirmation strategy matches the product’s risk tolerance. - [ ] Log signatures, instruction names, and sanitized error context. - [ ] Avoid logging private keys, seed phrases, or sensitive account data. ## 5. Release controls - [ ] Record the intended program binary, IDL, and configuration versions. - [ ] Obtain independent review for authority or financial-flow changes. - [ ] Prepare rollback or disable instructions where technically possible. - [ ] Publish a concise changelog with breaking-change warnings. - [ ] Tag the release and preserve build inputs for later investigation. ## 6. Post-release observation - [ ] Monitor error rates, confirmation delays, and unexpected instruction patterns. - [ ] Sample successful and failed transactions for regression signals. - [ ] Keep a time-stamped incident log. - [ ] Define an owner and escalation path for urgent failures. - [ ] Schedule a review after the first meaningful usage period. ## Release gate Release only when: - [ ] Critical tests pass. - [ ] Authority and configuration values have been independently checked. - [ ] Known limitations are documented. - [ ] An incident response path exists. - [ ] The team can identify the deployed version from a transaction or report.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana IDL Drift Guard **Format:** Product specification **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana teams maintaining Anchor-based programs, SDKs, and integrations ## Product A CI-friendly tool that compares a repository’s Interface Definition Language (IDL) with a selected deployed-program snapshot and reports potentially breaking differences. ## Problem Client libraries can silently become incompatible when instruction names, accounts, arguments, types, or errors change. Teams need a repeatable review step before publishing SDK updates or upgrading programs. ## MVP workflow ```bash idl-drift check \ --local target/idl/example.json \ --deployed deployed/example.json \ --format markdown ``` The tool produces: - Added, removed, and renamed instructions - Account constraint or mutability changes - Argument and return-type changes - Added or removed account fields - Error-code changes - A severity for each difference: - `info`: additive, likely compatible - `warning`: behavior or client assumptions may change - `breaking`: likely incompatible with existing clients - A nonzero exit code when breaking changes are detected ## Example report ```text IDL Drift Report: example BREAKING - instruction `withdraw`: account `vault` changed from writable to readonly - type `Position.amount`: u64 -> u128 WARNING - instruction `deposit`: new required account `referrer` INFO - added instruction `pause` Result: FAILED ``` ## Design constraints - Treat JSON as the initial input format. - Do not infer compatibility from names alone; require explicit rename annotations. - Preserve unknown fields rather than deleting them. - Make comparison rules configurable by repository. - Never sign transactions, submit transactions, or modify deployed programs. - Clearly distinguish “snapshot comparison” from live-chain verification. ## Suggested configuration ```yaml breaking: removed_instruction: true removed_account: true mutability_change: true type_change: true allowed_changes: - "errors.added" - "instructions.pause" ``` ## Acceptance criteria - Produces deterministic output for identical inputs. - Exits successfully for additive-only changes. - Fails CI for configured breaking changes. - Includes machine-readable JSON and human-readable Markdown output. - Handles malformed input with actionable line-level errors. - Documents limitations around snapshots, generated clients, and semantic behavior. ## Possible extensions - Compare generated TypeScript clients against the IDL. - Require migration notes for approved breaking changes. - Generate a release-review checklist. - Add a local pre-commit hook. **Value proposition:** a small, auditable compatibility gate for program and client releases, without requiring wallet access or on-chain mutation.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Triage Kit **Format:** Product specification **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana developers and support teams ## Product A small CLI that converts a failed transaction’s signature, logs, and optional expected instruction into a readable debugging report. ## Problem Transaction errors are often difficult to explain from raw logs alone. Teams repeatedly spend time collecting the same evidence, locating the failing instruction, and writing a user-facing explanation. ## MVP workflow ```bash solana-triage \ --signature <SIGNATURE> \ --rpc-url <RPC_URL> \ --expected-action "Swap token A for token B" ``` The tool outputs: - Transaction status and slot, when available from the supplied RPC - Account keys and instruction indexes - Program IDs invoked - Log lines grouped by instruction - First apparent failure point - Custom error codes in decimal and hexadecimal - Compute-unit consumption, when present in logs - A short “likely cause” section based only on observed evidence - A redacted Markdown report suitable for support tickets It should also accept saved JSON/log files for offline analysis: ```bash solana-triage --logs ./failed-tx.json --format markdown ``` ## Safety and trust rules - Never request or handle private keys. - Never submit, retry, or modify transactions. - Clearly distinguish observed fields from inferred explanations. - Preserve raw logs alongside any interpretation. - Redact configured addresses or user identifiers from exported reports. ## Suggested report structure ```md # Transaction Triage Report ## Summary - Result: - Signature: - Slot: - Failure location: ## Observed evidence - Programs invoked: - Relevant logs: - Error code: ## Interpretation - Most likely explanation: - Confidence: low / medium / high - Alternative explanations: ## Next checks - [ ] Confirm account ownership - [ ] Confirm writable/signing flags - [ ] Compare client and program instruction layouts - [ ] Reproduce with a known-good input ``` ## MVP implementation - TypeScript CLI - Pluggable RPC adapter - Parser for standard transaction metadata and log messages - Markdown and JSON output - Fixture-based tests covering success, custom program errors, compute exhaustion, and malformed input - No wallet adapter and no automatic transaction submission ## Acceptance criteria 1. A developer can generate a report from a signature or local fixture. 2. Every interpretation links back to raw evidence. 3. Unknown errors remain explicitly unknown. 4. Reports are deterministic for identical inputs. 5. Sensitive values can be redacted before export. ## Possible pricing Free local CLI; paid team features could include shared report templates, private fixture storage, and integrations with issue trackers.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Treasury Approval Packet **Format:** Reusable checklist and template **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana teams reviewing treasury payments ## Product concept A lightweight tool that turns a payment request into a reviewable approval packet before anyone signs. Start with manual entry and JSON export; leave wallet connections and transaction execution out of scope. **Core rule:** Missing evidence blocks readiness. The tool never labels a payment “safe.” ## Reusable payment packet ```text PAYMENT REQUEST Request ID: Requester: Purpose: Invoice or internal reference: Due date: TRANSFER DETAILS Cluster: Treasury address: Recipient wallet: Recipient token account, if applicable: Asset mint (or native SOL): Token program, if applicable: Amount in base units: Decimals: Display amount: RECIPIENT VERIFICATION Source of recipient address: Independent confirmation method: Confirmed by: Confirmation date: New or changed recipient?: Supporting evidence reference: REVIEW Budget owner: Budget category: Duplicate-payment check: Required approvers: Approval policy reference: Decision: pending / approved / rejected Reviewer notes: ``` **Handling guidance:** Never include seed phrases, private keys, or unnecessary personal information. Evidence references can point to internal records; attachments are optional. ## Readiness checklist - [ ] Purpose and supporting reference are present. - [ ] Cluster and treasury address match the intended payment context. - [ ] Recipient was independently confirmed—not merely copied from the request. - [ ] Any recipient change was reconfirmed through a previously established channel. - [ ] Asset identity uses the mint, not just a ticker; native SOL is explicitly marked. - [ ] Amount, decimals, and display amount agree without floating-point rounding. - [ ] Recipient token-account owner and mint were checked when applicable. - [ ] Invoice/reference was checked against pending and completed payments. - [ ] Required approvals are recorded under the team’s policy. - [ ] Final signing details will be compared against the approved packet. **If payment details change:** Invalidate existing approvals and require review again. ## MVP behavior 1. Accept the packet through a form or JSON import. 2. Validate required fields, address encoding, integer amounts, and amount formatting. 3. Flag missing confirmations, duplicate references, and changed recipients. 4. Export a human-readable packet plus versioned JSON. 5. Show one readiness state: - **Incomplete:** required information is missing. - **Needs review:** information is complete; approval remains outstanding. - **Approved for signing review:** required approvals are recorded. Address-format validation does **not** establish ownership, account existence, or recipient legitimacy. Manual confirmations must remain visibly distinct from automated checks. ## Acceptance tests - A valid-looking address without confirmation cannot reach approval readiness. - Two requests sharing a reference trigger a duplicate warning, not automatic rejection. - Changing recipient, asset, amount, cluster, or treasury invalidates approval. - Large base-unit amounts survive import/export exactly as strings. - Exported packets contain no execution or signing capability. ## Commercial experiment Offer the template free; test willingness to pay for shared review queues, policy configuration, and audit exports. Proceed only if teams find the packet useful in actual review workflows—no revenue assumed.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Migration Readiness Kit **Format:** Product specification **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana teams evaluating or switching RPC providers ## Product A CLI and TypeScript package that audits an application’s RPC usage, identifies provider-specific assumptions, and generates a migration checklist. ## Problem RPC migrations can expose hidden dependencies: hard-coded URLs, unsupported methods, commitment mismatches, rate-limit assumptions, and missing fallback behavior. Teams need a repeatable pre-migration review before changing infrastructure. ## MVP Deliverable Command: ```bash npx rpc-migration-audit ./project ``` Output: - Detected RPC URLs and environment variables - JSON-RPC methods used by the codebase - Commitment levels referenced - WebSocket usage and subscription types - Retry, timeout, and fallback configuration - Potentially provider-specific request patterns - Redacted report in Markdown and JSON - Migration checklist with owner and status fields ## Safety and Privacy - Never transmit source code by default - Redact tokens, API keys, private endpoints, and wallet secrets - Scan local files only unless explicitly configured otherwise - Mark findings as “detected,” “potential,” or “manual review” - Avoid claiming provider compatibility without explicit test evidence ## Example Report ```md # RPC Migration Audit ## Findings - [ ] RPC endpoint configured through environment variable - [ ] WebSocket endpoint detected - [ ] Retry policy not detected - [ ] Commitment level: manual review - [ ] Provider-specific method pattern: potential ## Required Tests - [ ] Read-only account fetch - [ ] Recent blockhash retrieval - [ ] Transaction simulation - [ ] Transaction submission - [ ] Subscription reconnect - [ ] Rate-limit handling - [ ] Timeout behavior ``` ## Monetizable Extensions 1. Paid repository review with a human-readable migration report 2. CI mode that fails on newly introduced hard-coded endpoints 3. Team dashboard for migration checklist ownership 4. Provider-neutral integration test templates ## Success Criteria - Produces a useful report without network access - Redacts secrets in sample fixtures - Supports common JavaScript/TypeScript project layouts - Clearly separates automated findings from manual checks - Generates an actionable migration plan in under one command

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Simulation Preview API **Format:** Product specification **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana teams building transaction flows, wallets, and dashboards ## Product A small service or SDK that simulates a prospective Solana transaction and returns a user-friendly preview before signing. ## Problem Users are often asked to approve transactions without understanding: - Which accounts may change - Which token balances may move - Whether the transaction is likely to fail - Which program instructions are included - What fee and compute budget are requested Raw simulation output is useful to developers but difficult to present safely to end users. ## Core workflow 1. Client submits a serialized, unsigned transaction. 2. API runs simulation against a configured RPC endpoint. 3. Decoder extracts instructions, account roles, token balance deltas, logs, errors, and compute usage. 4. API returns: - `simulationStatus` - human-readable instruction summary - estimated fee - token and SOL balance changes, when derivable - writable accounts - warnings for unknown programs or incomplete decoding - raw logs for developer mode ## Example response ```json { "simulationStatus": "warning", "summary": ["Swap instruction detected"], "estimatedFeeLamports": 5000, "balanceChanges": [ {"mint": "SOL", "direction": "decrease", "amount": "0.01"}, {"mint": "UNKNOWN", "direction": "increase", "amount": "42"} ], "warnings": [ "One instruction could not be decoded", "Simulation results may differ at signing time" ], "logs": [] } ``` ## Safety requirements - Never describe simulation as guaranteed execution. - Mark undecodable instructions clearly. - Do not infer token meaning from symbols alone. - Redact or hash sensitive account data in retained logs. - Require explicit user confirmation outside the API before signing. - Include blockhash freshness and simulation slot in developer output. ## Minimal API - `POST /v1/simulate` - `GET /v1/decoders` - `POST /v1/format` Suggested SDK methods: ```ts simulate(transaction, options?) formatPreview(simulation, locale?) ``` ## Acceptance criteria - Correctly distinguishes simulation success, simulation error, and unavailable simulation. - Preserves raw logs without exposing them in the default user view. - Handles unknown programs without failing the entire response. - Includes a visible “may differ at signing time” notice. - Provides deterministic fixture tests for success, failure, token transfer, and unknown-instruction cases. - Supports configurable RPC credentials and timeouts. ## Monetization direction Offer a self-hostable core SDK and an optional hosted API with usage limits, retention controls, and team-level observability. No usage, pricing, or performance claims are implied by this proposal.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Repro Pack **Format:** Product specification **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated **Audience:** Solana developers debugging failed or confusing transactions ## Product A lightweight TypeScript package and CLI that turns a failed transaction attempt into a shareable, privacy-conscious diagnostic bundle. ## Problem Error messages alone rarely preserve enough context to reproduce a failure. Developers need a consistent record of: - Cluster and RPC endpoint label - Recent blockhash context - Transaction message or redacted instruction summary - Signer and writable-account metadata - Simulation result - Logs and returned error - Client/library versions - Timestamp and a generated case ID ## Core workflow ```bash solana-repro capture \ --transaction ./tx.json \ --logs ./logs.txt \ --cluster devnet \ --rpc-label primary ``` The CLI outputs: ```text repro/ manifest.json transaction.json logs.txt README.md ``` `README.md` contains a human-readable failure summary and exact commands for local inspection. No upload is performed automatically. ## Privacy defaults - Never include private keys, seed phrases, wallet connection tokens, or environment variables. - Replace account addresses with stable placeholders by default. - Allow explicit opt-in to preserve selected public keys. - Warn before writing raw transaction bytes. - Make redaction rules visible in `manifest.json`. ## Example manifest ```json { "schemaVersion": 1, "caseId": "local-generated-id", "cluster": "devnet", "rpcLabel": "primary", "capturedAt": "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z", "client": { "language": "typescript", "libraryVersions": {} }, "result": { "status": "simulation_failed", "error": "redacted", "logsFile": "logs.txt" }, "redaction": { "publicKeysReplaced": true, "rawBytesIncluded": false } } ``` The timestamp above is illustrative; implementations should generate it at capture time. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] Capture works without network access when given local inputs. - [ ] Missing fields produce warnings, not silent guesses. - [ ] Secrets are rejected before files are written. - [ ] Redaction is deterministic within one bundle. - [ ] Bundle can be inspected with standard text tools. - [ ] Schema validation covers required and optional fields. - [ ] Tests include malformed transactions, empty logs, oversized logs, and simulation success. - [ ] README explains that the bundle is diagnostic evidence, not proof of root cause. ## Possible pricing Open-source capture format; optional paid team features could include private bundle storage, retention controls, and issue-tracker integrations. No sales, deployment, or revenue is implied.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Account Readiness Contract **Format:** Product specification + reusable QA checklist **Audience:** Solana teams building onboarding, payments, or protocol interfaces **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem Transactions often fail because required accounts, permissions, or token accounts are missing. Teams need a consistent way to detect these conditions before asking users to sign. ## Product A small client-side “readiness” module that evaluates a planned action and returns: ```ts type ReadinessResult = | { ok: true; checks: CheckResult[] } | { ok: false; checks: CheckResult[]; blocking: CheckResult[] }; type CheckResult = { id: string; status: "pass" | "warn" | "block"; title: string; detail: string; userAction?: string; }; ``` ## Required checks - **Wallet connected:** A signer is available. - **Network selected:** The app’s intended cluster is explicit. - **Program availability:** Expected program accounts can be found. - **Required accounts:** Every instruction account is present or derivable. - **Token account:** The user’s token account exists or creation is intentional. - **Authority:** The connected wallet matches the required signer or owner. - **Balance reserve:** The wallet has enough balance for the intended operation and fees. - **Account freshness:** Read data is recent enough for the action. - **Instruction ownership:** Each writable account is owned by the expected program. - **Duplicate creation:** The flow will not recreate an already existing account. ## User-facing result examples **Blocking** > This action needs a token account that is not available. > **Next step:** Create the account, then try again. **Warning** > This preview uses data fetched earlier and may be outdated. > **Next step:** Refresh before signing. **Pass** > Your wallet and required accounts are ready. ## Implementation rules 1. Run readiness checks before transaction construction. 2. Re-run checks immediately before signing. 3. Keep diagnostic IDs stable for logs and support requests. 4. Never hide the account or authority causing a failure. 5. Treat “unknown” as a warning or block—not as success. 6. Make account-creation fees and affected accounts visible before approval. 7. Use the same readiness result in UI, telemetry, and support tooling. ## QA checklist - [ ] Missing wallet produces a clear blocking result. - [ ] Wrong cluster is detected before signing. - [ ] Missing token account is distinguishable from insufficient balance. - [ ] Incorrect authority names the expected role, not private data. - [ ] Existing accounts are not recreated. - [ ] Stale account data triggers refresh guidance. - [ ] A failed readiness check prevents accidental signing. - [ ] Every block has a concrete user action. - [ ] Readiness diagnostics can be copied without exposing secrets. - [ ] Tests cover both native and token-based flows.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Token Amount Safety Kit **Format:** Concrete design brief and reusable QA checklist **Audience:** Solana teams building payment, wallet, and trading interfaces **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Product A small TypeScript library and test fixture pack that prevents token amounts from changing silently between entry, preview, and transaction construction. **Core rule:** Preserve exact quantities. Never silently round a user’s spending instruction. ## MVP Interface ```ts parseAmount(input: string, decimals: number): | { ok: true; raw: bigint; canonical: string } | { ok: false; code: "INVALID_FORMAT" | "EXCESS_PRECISION" | "OUT_OF_RANGE" } formatExact(raw: bigint, decimals: number): string ``` **Parsing contract** - Accept plain decimal strings; trim surrounding whitespace. - Reject negative signs, exponent notation, separators, and empty input. - Require a digit before the decimal point and digits after it when present. - Reject any fractional input exceeding the configured decimals, including trailing zeros. - Use string operations and integer arithmetic, not floating-point conversion. - Validate `decimals` as an integer from 0 through 255; throw a configuration error otherwise. - Enforce the unsigned 64-bit range for raw token amounts. - Permit zero at the library layer; transaction flows may forbid it. **Formatting contract** - Return a plain decimal string without grouping or exponent notation. - Remove unnecessary fractional trailing zeros. - Never abbreviate an amount used for signing or approval. ## Required Test Fixtures | Input | Decimals | Expected | |---|---:|---| | `"1.25"` | 6 | `1250000n`, `"1.25"` | | `"0001.20"` | 2 | `120n`, `"1.2"` | | `"0.000001"` | 6 | `1n`, `"0.000001"` | | `"1.230"` | 2 | `EXCESS_PRECISION` | | `"1e3"` | 6 | `INVALID_FORMAT` | | `"1,000"` | 6 | `INVALID_FORMAT` | | `"1.0"` | 0 | `EXCESS_PRECISION` | | `"18446744073709551616"` | 0 | `OUT_OF_RANGE` | ## Integration Checklist - [ ] Associate decimals with the selected mint and network, not its symbol alone. - [ ] Block amount submission while mint metadata is unresolved. - [ ] Revalidate input whenever the selected token changes. - [ ] Serialize raw amounts as decimal strings across JSON boundaries. - [ ] Construct the transfer amount from the validated integer. - [ ] Show the exact amount and token identity before signing. - [ ] Treat fees, minimum-received amounts, and “Max” calculations separately. - [ ] Test `parseAmount(formatExact(raw, d), d).raw === raw` across valid ranges. ## Ready-to-Use Error Copy - **Invalid format:** “Enter an amount using digits and a decimal point only.” - **Excess precision:** “This token supports up to {decimals} decimal places. Edit the amount to continue.” - **Out of range:** “This amount is too large for a token transfer.” ## Scope and Commercial Test Exclude swaps, fee estimation, token discovery, and wallet signing. Offer the core fixtures freely; test demand for a fixed-scope integration review covering amount handling and regression tests. No revenue or adoption assumed.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Status Copy Kit **Format:** Reusable interface copy and implementation brief **Audience:** Solana teams building wallets, checkout flows, or trading interfaces **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Help users distinguish wallet approval, submission, confirmation, and uncertainty—without encouraging duplicate actions. ## Ready-to-use copy | State | Heading | Supporting text | Primary action | |---|---|---|---| | Awaiting wallet | Approve in your wallet | Review the transaction details before approving. | Open wallet | | Approval declined | Transaction not approved | You declined the wallet request. This attempt was not submitted by this app. | Review details | | Submission started | Submitting transaction | We’re sending your signed transaction. Keep this page open while we check its status. | View details | | Submission acknowledged | Waiting for confirmation | A network service accepted the submission. That does not yet mean it succeeded. | View status | | Confirmed successfully | Transaction confirmed | The transaction succeeded at the confirmed commitment level. Finalization is still pending. | View transaction | | Finalized successfully | Transaction finalized | The transaction succeeded and reached finalized commitment. | View receipt | | Execution failed | Transaction failed | The network reported an execution error. Network fees may still apply. | Review error | | Status unavailable | Outcome not yet known | We can’t verify the outcome right now. Check this attempt before trying again. | Check again | | Validity window passed; outcome unresolved | Submission window ended | This signed transaction can no longer be newly processed, but it may have landed earlier. Check its history before creating another attempt. | Check history | ## Implementation rules - Show success only when the observed transaction status has no execution error and meets the displayed commitment level. - Treat timeouts, disconnected clients, and unavailable RPC responses as **unknown**, not failed. - Persist the transaction signature and a local attempt ID before submission where possible. Never persist private keys or seed phrases. - “Check again” performs a status lookup; it must not request another signature or create another transaction. - Keep retry separate from status checking. Before retrying, reconcile the prior attempt and explain any remaining uncertainty. - Use validity-window messaging only when the transaction type and tracked validity data support it. Durable nonce transactions need separate handling. - Keep raw technical errors in expandable details. Never display credentials or authenticated RPC URLs. - A receipt records the observation time, commitment level, signature, and application reference. It must not imply delivery of an offchain service. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] Closing and reopening the interface restores the pending attempt. - [ ] An RPC timeout never displays a definitive failure. - [ ] Repeated status checks never produce additional transactions. - [ ] A confirmed transaction with an execution error never displays success. - [ ] Status is readable without relying on color. - [ ] Unsupported or unresolved states fall back to “Outcome not yet known.” ## Smallest useful package Ship the copy table, a typed state model, and a mock-state preview page. Start with one transaction flow rather than a full wallet SDK. **Revenue hypothesis:** Offer the kit as a fixed-scope integration package: state mapping, copy adaptation, and uncertainty-state tests. Demand and pricing remain unvalidated.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Treasury Approval Packet **Format:** Concise product specification **Audience:** Small Solana teams managing shared treasuries **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Product A local-first tool that turns a proposed treasury payment into a consistent review packet before anyone signs. **Problem:** Payment details scattered across chat make it difficult to distinguish a complete request from one that needs clarification. **Boundary:** This tool organizes approval evidence. It does not custody funds, execute transactions, or certify that a recipient is trustworthy. ## MVP workflow 1. A requester enters payment details. 2. The tool checks completeness and flags discrepancies. 3. A reviewer compares the request against supporting evidence. 4. The team exports a versioned packet for its existing signing workflow. ## Required fields - Request ID, author, creation time, and intended network. - Recipient address and human-readable recipient label. - Asset mint address—or explicit native SOL selection. - Amount expressed in base units, with decimals recorded for display. - Business purpose, budget category, and supporting reference. - Required approvers and requested payment date. References can be internal document identifiers; public links are not required. ## Review safeguards - Show full recipient and mint addresses in the final review. - Flag a recipient address that differs from the team's saved record. - Flag repeated request IDs and matching recipient/asset/amount combinations. Treat matches as review prompts, not proof of duplicate payment. - Never treat a token symbol or recipient label as identity verification. - Separate **missing information**, **review concerns**, and **approval status**. - Any edit to payment-critical fields invalidates existing approvals. - Bind each recorded approval to a specific packet version. Label manually recorded approvals as attestations, not cryptographic signatures. ## Output A readable summary plus structured JSON: ```json { "requestId": "", "version": 1, "network": "", "recipientAddress": "", "asset": { "kind": "native_or_token", "mintAddress": null, "decimals": null }, "amountBaseUnits": "", "purpose": "", "supportingReferences": [], "reviewConcerns": [], "approvalRecords": [], "status": "draft" } ``` Use strings for base-unit amounts to avoid numeric precision loss. ## Acceptance criteria - An incomplete request cannot become “ready for review.” - Changing recipient, asset, amount, or network resets approvals. - Exports preserve exact addresses and base-unit amounts. - A packet can be created and exported without connecting a wallet. - No screen equates packet approval with payment execution. - Private references remain local unless explicitly exported. ## Commercial test Offer a fixed-scope setup package: configure the team's request template, approval rules, and export format. Test whether teams will pay for reduced review friction before adding integrations.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Failover Drill **Format:** Reusable release checklist **Audience:** Solana teams operating transaction-submission services **Status:** Draft procedure; not executed or validated ## Purpose Test whether an application handles an RPC outage without misleading users, duplicating business actions, or exposing credentials. **Scope:** Run against a controlled test environment with test wallets. Do not inject faults into production. ## Preparation - [ ] Assign a drill owner and rollback owner. - [ ] Configure primary and fallback RPC endpoints; keep credentials out of logs. - [ ] Record endpoint timeouts, retry limits, and failover triggers. - [ ] Set a request-rate ceiling and a maximum drill duration. - [ ] Prepare three test cases: balance read, transaction simulation, and transaction submission. - [ ] Give each business action a persistent identifier, separate from any transaction signature. - [ ] Define the required confirmation commitment for reporting success. ## Fault Scenarios | Injected condition | Required application behavior | |---|---| | Primary endpoint times out | Stop waiting at the configured deadline; attempt bounded fallback. | | Endpoint returns rate-limit errors | Back off; avoid an immediate retry storm. | | Endpoints report different states | Preserve uncertainty; do not treat disagreement as proof of failure. | | Submission response is lost | Mark submission outcome unknown; reconcile using the known transaction signature before considering replacement. | | Fallback also fails | Show a recoverable degraded state rather than a false success. | ## Transaction Safety Checks - [ ] Persist the signed transaction’s signature before sending. - [ ] Distinguish **not submitted**, **submission unknown**, **observed**, **confirmed**, and **failed**. - [ ] Do not interpret an RPC timeout as transaction failure. - [ ] If retrying the same signed transaction, preserve its bytes and signature. - [ ] Treat a replacement transaction as a new execution risk: reconcile the original, check validity, and apply business-level duplicate protection. - [ ] Never silently rebuild or re-sign a user-authorized transaction. - [ ] Preserve a reconciliation path after the user closes the page. ## User-Facing Copy **Delayed:** “Confirmation is taking longer than expected. We’re checking the transaction status. Avoid submitting this action again for now.” **Unknown:** “We can’t confirm the outcome yet. This does not mean the transaction failed. Check its status before retrying.” **Service unavailable before submission:** “We couldn’t submit this transaction. Please try again later.” Use the last message only when the application can establish that submission did not occur. ## Pass Criteria - No duplicate business action occurs in the test cases. - No success message appears before the required confirmation. - Retries stay within configured limits. - Unknown outcomes remain visible and recoverable. - Logs contain action identifiers, signatures where available, endpoint labels, and state transitions—but no secrets. - Restoring the primary endpoint does not create a burst of queued submissions. ## Drill Record ```text Owner: Environment / application version: Fault injected: Expected behavior: Observed behavior: Retry count: Final transaction state: Duplicate action detected: User message shown: Pass / fail: Blocking fix and owner: ``` **Potential paid package:** A fixed-scope drill setup, witnessed test session, and prioritized remediation report. Quote only after reviewing the application’s submission flow; do not promise uninterrupted service.

# Self-Directed Draft: Transaction Intent Receipt **Format:** Concise product specification **Audience:** Solana dApps handling user-signed transactions **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Product A lightweight receipt layer that shows users what a transaction was intended to do, what was submitted for signing, and what the application observed afterward. ## User problem Users often see technical transaction details without a clear answer to: - What action did I approve? - Which assets or accounts were involved? - Did the application submit the intended action? - What should I do if the result is unclear? ## MVP ### Before signing Display a human-readable intent card: - Action: swap, transfer, stake, vote, or custom - Source and destination accounts, shortened - Assets and amounts - Network/environment label supplied by the app - Estimated fees, if available - Warning when the parsed transaction differs from the requested intent ### After signing Create a local receipt containing: - Intent summary - Timestamp - Client-generated request ID - Transaction identifier, if returned - App-observed status: submitted, confirmed, failed, or unknown - Error text supplied by the client, if any - “Retry” guidance that avoids implying the original action failed when status is unknown ## Suggested interface copy **Review before signing** > You’re about to transfer **[amount] [asset]** from **[source]** to **[destination]**. > Network: **[environment]** > Estimated fee: **[fee or unavailable]** > Review the details in your wallet before approving. **Status: Submitted** > Your transaction was submitted. We’re checking for an update. Avoid repeating the action until the status is clear. **Status: Unknown** > We couldn’t confirm the final result yet. Save this receipt and check your activity before trying again. ## Minimal data model ```text request_id intent_type intent_parameters transaction_id environment_label created_at observed_status observed_error ``` Store only the fields required for support and user clarity. Avoid collecting secret keys or signing material. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] Intent is visible before wallet approval - [ ] Displayed amounts and accounts come from the client’s requested action - [ ] Unknown status is distinct from failure - [ ] Retry actions include duplicate-action guidance - [ ] Receipt can be copied or exported - [ ] No private keys or seed phrases are requested - [ ] UI labels environment/network information as client-supplied - [ ] Error messages remain understandable without exposing sensitive data ## Success signal A user can explain what they approved and what happened next without reading raw transaction instructions.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Token Launch Configuration Review **Format:** Concise product specification **Audience:** Solana teams preparing a token launch **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Product A read-only review tool that compares a team’s intended token configuration against supplied configuration data, highlighting discrepancies before launch. **Core question:** “Does this configuration match what we intend to tell users?” This is a configuration review—not a security audit, investment assessment, or launch certification. ## MVP inputs - Network and mint address, if created. - Expected decimals and initial supply. - Intended mint and freeze authority policies. - Expected metadata update policy. - Applicable token extensions and intended settings. - Team’s proposed public description of these controls. Support two modes: 1. **Pre-creation:** Review a proposed configuration file. 2. **Existing mint:** Compare intent with an imported account-data snapshot. Every report shows its source and capture time; absent timestamps are labeled unknown. ## Review rules Each check returns **Match**, **Mismatch**, **Unknown**, or **Not applicable**. | Check | Flag when | |---|---| | Supply units | Human-readable supply and base-unit quantity disagree | | Mint authority | Recorded authority differs from the intended issuance policy | | Freeze authority | Recorded authority differs from the intended freeze policy | | Metadata controls | Update control differs from the declared policy | | Extensions | An observed extension is undeclared or its settings differ | | Public claims | Copy claims a control is disabled while supplied data shows it enabled | Unsupported fields must return **Unknown**, never an implied pass. Authority presence does not establish who controls it; unknown ownership remains explicit. ## Report layout **Header:** Review mode, network, mint or configuration identifier, data source, capture time. **Summary:** Counts by result, followed by unresolved launch-review items. Avoid an overall “safe” badge. **Finding template** > **Mismatch — Mint authority** > Intended policy: No further issuance after initial mint. > Supplied configuration: Mint authority remains configured. > Action: Reconcile the configuration and stated policy. Confirm the intended final state before publishing launch copy. **Footer:** “This report reflects supplied data only. Configuration may change. Matching settings do not establish token safety.” Export as Markdown and JSON for internal approval records. ## Boundaries - No wallet connection, signing, authority changes, or transaction submission. - Never request private keys or seed phrases. - Treat irreversible changes as decisions requiring separate review. - Do not infer concentration, liquidity, ownership, or legitimacy from configuration alone. ## Acceptance criteria - Supply calculations use integer base units, not floating-point arithmetic. - Missing or unparseable data produces **Unknown** with a reason. - Proposed configurations are never presented as live observations. - Each finding includes intended value, supplied value, and rule identifier. - Identical inputs and rule versions produce identical findings. - Exports omit credentials and private RPC URLs. ## Commercial hypothesis Offer the self-service comparison free; test demand for paid team workflows with saved baselines, reviewer approvals, and configuration-diff reports. Charge for review coordination—not a safety seal.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Failover Readiness Kit **Format:** Reusable checklist **Audience:** Solana dApp and wallet teams **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Goal Verify that an application can handle slow, unavailable, inconsistent, or rate-limited RPC providers without misleading users or duplicating actions. ## Configuration checklist - [ ] Primary and fallback RPC endpoints are configurable without a code release. - [ ] Endpoint credentials are stored outside client-visible source code. - [ ] Requests have explicit timeouts. - [ ] Retries use bounded exponential backoff. - [ ] Non-idempotent actions are not blindly retried. - [ ] Each request carries a correlation ID in logs. - [ ] Provider errors are normalized into application-level categories. ## Failure scenarios to test | Scenario | Expected behavior | |---|---| | Timeout during balance read | Show stale-data warning or retry state; never display zero by default | | Blockhash expiration | Refresh blockhash and provide a clear retry action | | Submission response lost | Check signature status before resubmitting | | Rate limit response | Back off, switch provider if configured, and explain temporary delay | | Provider returns inconsistent slot data | Prefer a fresh response from a healthy provider | | All providers unavailable | Preserve user inputs and show recovery guidance | | Read succeeds but confirmation stalls | Show pending state with a status-check path | ## Required telemetry Record, without exposing secrets: - Request type - Provider identifier - Latency - Error category - Retry count - Correlation ID - Whether the request changed user funds or state Avoid logging private keys, seed phrases, raw authorization headers, or sensitive user payloads. ## Acceptance criteria A release is ready when: 1. Every listed scenario has an automated test or documented manual test. 2. A lost submission response cannot cause an automatic duplicate submission. 3. Users can distinguish pending, failed, and unknown outcomes. 4. Switching providers does not discard form state. 5. Logs allow one failed action to be traced across retries. 6. A disabled or removed provider can be replaced through configuration.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Receipt **Format:** Concrete design brief **Audience:** Solana wallet and dApp teams **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem When a transaction fails—or its status is unclear—users need to know what happened, whether retrying is safe, and what information support needs. Raw error messages rarely answer all three. ## Product An embeddable receipt that turns application and RPC observations into a plain-language status summary and a privacy-conscious support export. **Scope:** Explain observed outcomes. Never sign, submit, or automatically retry transactions. ## Receipt layout **1. Status headline** Use one of five states: - **Not submitted:** The application did not send the transaction. - **Submission uncertain:** Sending was attempted; acceptance is unknown. - **Awaiting confirmation:** A signature is available, but the configured confirmation target has not been observed. - **Execution failed:** A reported execution error is available. - **Confirmed:** The configured confirmation target was observed. Display the network, observation time, and confirmation target. Never treat a timeout alone as proof of failure. **2. What we know** Separate observations from interpretations: > **Observed:** The confirmation request timed out. > **Meaning:** This application has not determined the transaction’s outcome. > **Next step:** Check status before attempting the action again. **3. Suggested action** - Not submitted → “Review and try again.” - Submission uncertain → “Check your recent activity before retrying.” - Awaiting confirmation → “Refresh status.” - Execution failed → “Review the error and refresh the transaction details before retrying.” - Confirmed → “View receipt.” Do not promise that a failed transaction incurred no fees or that retrying cannot duplicate the intended action. **4. Support export** Offer a preview before copying: ```json { "receipt_version": "1", "network": "<network>", "app_release": "<release>", "status": "submission_uncertain", "observed_at": "<timestamp>", "confirmation_target": "<target>", "signature": null, "error_code": null, "suggested_action": "check_recent_activity" } ``` Signatures are optional to share. Omit wallet addresses, raw transaction payloads, RPC URLs, and logs by default. Explain that signatures can reveal public transaction activity. Never request seed phrases or private keys. ## Implementation boundaries - Accept structured application events and RPC observations. - Preserve conflicting observations rather than silently replacing them. - Show “Unknown error” when no tested mapping exists. - Use “last checked” timestamps so stale results remain visible. - Keep diagnostic export local unless the user explicitly shares it. - Make status text accessible without relying on color. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] A timeout produces uncertainty, not an execution-failure claim. - [ ] Unknown errors receive useful, non-speculative copy. - [ ] No action button signs or submits a transaction. - [ ] Support exports omit sensitive fields by default. - [ ] A late confirmation updates the receipt while retaining observation history. - [ ] Fee and balance effects are labeled unknown unless separately observed. ## Commercial hypothesis Offer a free receipt component and a paid integration package covering application-specific error mappings, accessibility review, and support-export configuration. Validate demand with teams before setting prices or expanding scope.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Program Upgrade Diff Kit **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana program teams, auditors, and release engineers **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Provide a repeatable pre-release review for Solana program upgrades by comparing a proposed build against a previously approved interface and configuration. ## Core workflow 1. Upload or paste: - Previous and proposed IDLs - Program addresses - Upgrade-authority configuration - Account-size and rent-related assumptions - Migration notes 2. Generate a structured diff. 3. Classify each change: - **Breaking:** account layout, required instruction fields, PDA seeds, signer requirements - **Operational:** compute budget, transaction size, initialization flow - **Informational:** comments, naming, documentation 4. Require a reviewer decision for every breaking or operational change. 5. Export a release checklist and review record. ## MVP deliverable A CLI or web form that outputs Markdown: ```text Release: v0.4.0 Program: <address> Reviewer: <name> Status: BLOCKED / APPROVED Breaking changes - Instruction `deposit`: added required account `vault_authority` - Account `Position`: field order changed Operational changes - `withdraw` now requires two transactions Open decisions - Migration path for existing `Position` accounts - Rollback procedure if initialization fails ``` ## Safety boundaries - Read-only analysis by default. - No private keys, seed phrases, or signing capability. - No automatic deployment or upgrade-authority changes. - Treat missing metadata as an explicit warning, not as approval. ## Acceptance criteria - Produces deterministic output for identical inputs. - Clearly distinguishes additions, removals, and modifications. - Flags changed account ordering and signer/writable status. - Allows comments and reviewer sign-off. - Exports a versioned artifact suitable for a pull request. - Never labels a release “approved” without an explicit reviewer decision. ## Suggested pricing test Offer a fixed-price review package containing: - One interface diff - One generated checklist - One review call or written summary - No deployment access required Validate demand through direct outreach and paid pilots rather than assuming adoption.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Integration Contract Card **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana protocols, wallets, and dApp integrators **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Create a machine-readable and human-friendly contract describing how an integration should interact with a Solana program. The card reduces ambiguity around accounts, instructions, environments, errors, fees, and upgrade expectations. ## Core artifact Each protocol publishes one versioned `integration-card.json` plus a rendered documentation page. ```json { "protocol": "example", "version": "1.0.0", "clusters": { "mainnet": { "programIds": ["..."], "rpcRequirements": "standard" }, "devnet": { "programIds": ["..."] } }, "instructions": [ { "name": "deposit", "requiredAccounts": [ {"name": "user", "signer": true, "writable": true}, {"name": "vault", "signer": false, "writable": true} ], "expectedEffects": ["user balance decreases", "vault balance increases"], "commonErrors": [ {"code": "INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS", "userMessage": "Not enough funds"} ] } ], "compatibility": { "sdkVersions": ["..."], "breakingChangePolicy": "new major version" }, "support": { "lastReviewed": "YYYY-MM-DD", "owner": "team-defined contact" } } ``` ## MVP features - JSON schema validation. - Markdown rendering from the card. - Account-role table per instruction. - Cluster and program-ID comparison. - Error-code catalog with user-facing copy. - Version diff showing added, removed, or changed fields. - Exportable integration test checklist. ## Workflow 1. A protocol team fills out the card. 2. CI validates schema and required fields. 3. A pull request displays the rendered diff. 4. Integrators consume the versioned card. 5. Releases require an explicit compatibility classification. ## Acceptance criteria - Invalid cards fail with actionable field-level errors. - Every instruction identifies required signers and writable accounts. - Cluster-specific program IDs cannot be silently omitted. - A changed account requirement appears in the version diff. - The rendered page is understandable without reading source code. - No private keys, seed phrases, or signing permissions are requested. ## Possible business model Offer a hosted validator, private team workspaces, and CI integrations while keeping the card format open and portable.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Inbox **Format:** Concise product specification **Audience:** Solana teams operating user-facing apps **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Turn scattered transaction errors into a prioritized engineering inbox—without collecting wallet secrets or requiring signing access. **Product hypothesis:** Teams will pay for faster diagnosis of recurring transaction failures. ## Core workflow 1. An app submits sanitized failure events through a small SDK or HTTP endpoint. 2. The service groups similar failures by application version, transaction stage, instruction index, and error code. 3. A dashboard shows affected sessions, frequency, first/last occurrence, and representative sanitized logs. 4. An engineer assigns an owner, records a diagnosis, and tracks whether failures decline after a fix. ## Minimum event schema | Field | Requirement | |---|---| | `event_id` | Required; used for deduplication | | `occurred_at` | Required timestamp | | `app_version` | Required release identifier | | `cluster` | Required; distinguish local, devnet, and mainnet | | `stage` | Required: build, simulate, sign, submit, confirm | | `error_code` | Optional structured code | | `instruction_index` | Optional | | `logs` | Optional; sanitized and size-limited | | `session_id` | Optional rotating, pseudonymous identifier | | `signature` | Optional; explicit collection opt-in | Never accept private keys, seed phrases, authentication tokens, or raw signed transactions. Omit wallet addresses by default. ## Inbox behavior - Separate user-declined signatures from technical failures. - Treat confirmation timeouts as **outcome unknown**, not proven transaction failure. - Group unknown errors conservatively; preserve representative examples. - Label suggested causes as hypotheses until reviewed. - Show counts of **reported events**, not network-wide failure rates. - Mark a group “resolved” manually; reopen when matching events recur after the designated fix version. ## MVP scope **Include:** ingestion endpoint, browser SDK, grouping rules, filters, issue ownership, CSV export, and configurable retention. **Exclude:** automatic retries, transaction submission, wallet access, trading recommendations, and automatic remediation. ## Acceptance criteria - Repeated delivery of an event ID does not inflate counts. - Distinct instruction error codes remain separately inspectable. - Timeout events never display as confirmed failures without additional evidence. - Redaction and payload limits apply before logs leave the app. - Operators can delete an application’s stored events. - Dashboard access is isolated by team. - Grouping changes remain traceable rather than silently rewriting issue history. ## Commercial test Offer a fixed-scope pilot: integrate one app, identify its most frequent reported failure groups, and deliver a short diagnostic report. Price the pilot only after confirming integration effort and expected event volume. **Validation questions:** Does the inbox reduce diagnosis time? Do teams return after the first report? Will a team pay for continued monitoring rather than a one-time audit?

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Release Readiness Checklist **Format:** Reusable checklist **Audience:** Solana dApp, program, and infrastructure teams **Status:** Proposed; not validated ## 1. Build and configuration - [ ] Record the commit, build artifact, and release owner. - [ ] Confirm cluster-specific configuration is explicit. - [ ] Verify program IDs, upgrade authority, and deployed binary expectations. - [ ] Ensure secrets are injected at runtime rather than committed. - [ ] Confirm frontend, backend, indexer, and worker versions are compatible. ## 2. Program safety - [ ] Review account constraints and signer requirements. - [ ] Check instruction behavior for zero, maximum, duplicate, and unexpected inputs. - [ ] Confirm PDA seeds and bump handling are deterministic. - [ ] Verify authorization checks occur before state mutation. - [ ] Test rejected transactions do not leave partial state changes. - [ ] Document migration and rollback limitations. ## 3. Transaction reliability - [ ] Set a clear blockhash refresh and retry policy. - [ ] Handle compute-budget and transaction-size failures explicitly. - [ ] Define behavior for expired blockhashes and dropped transactions. - [ ] Prevent duplicate submission from causing unintended effects. - [ ] Store enough context to reproduce a failed transaction locally. ## 4. Client and API behavior - [ ] Surface actionable error messages without exposing secrets. - [ ] Distinguish user rejection, simulation failure, RPC failure, and program failure. - [ ] Confirm loading, retry, timeout, and cancellation states. - [ ] Validate all user-controlled amounts and addresses before signing. - [ ] Ensure stale account data cannot silently overwrite newer state. ## 5. Observability - [ ] Track instruction name, outcome, latency, and error category. - [ ] Correlate client requests with transaction signatures where available. - [ ] Redact private keys, tokens, and sensitive user data from logs. - [ ] Define alert thresholds and an owner for each alert. - [ ] Prepare a dashboard or log query for release verification. ## 6. Deployment and rollback - [ ] Write the exact deployment sequence before execution. - [ ] Back up required state and configuration. - [ ] Define who can authorize each production action. - [ ] Test the rollback procedure in a non-production environment. - [ ] Document irreversible actions and user-impacting consequences. - [ ] Keep a release record with timestamps, commits, and observed results. ## 7. Post-release verification - [ ] Run a known-good read path. - [ ] Run a controlled write path with a test account. - [ ] Confirm expected balances, account ownership, and emitted events. - [ ] Check error rates and latency for a defined observation window. - [ ] Record deviations, follow-up tasks, and the final release decision. ## Release decision **Release owner:** ____________________ **Commit/build:** ____________________ **Target cluster/environment:** ____________________ **Known risks:** ____________________ **Rollback trigger:** ____________________ **Decision:** ☐ Go ☐ Hold ☐ Roll back **Notes:** ____________________

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Program ID Registry **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana dApp and infrastructure teams **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Create a single, reviewable source of truth for program IDs across clusters, environments, and releases. ## Problem Teams often duplicate program IDs across frontend configuration, backend services, scripts, and deployment files. A wrong address or cluster-specific value can cause confusing integration errors and risky release mistakes. ## MVP A small registry with: - Program name and owning team - Cluster: localnet, devnet, testnet, or mainnet - Program ID - Deployment environment: development, staging, or production - Git commit or release tag - Upgrade authority status: known, absent, or unknown - Last reviewed date - Maintainer - Notes and deprecation state ## Suggested record ```yaml name: example_program cluster: devnet environment: staging program_id: "<BASE58_PROGRAM_ID>" release: "v0.4.0" source_commit: "<COMMIT_SHA>" upgrade_authority: unknown maintainer: team-name status: active reviewed_on: "YYYY-MM-DD" ``` ## Workflow 1. Submit a registry change through version control. 2. Require a reviewer from the owning team. 3. Validate address formatting and required fields. 4. Generate typed configuration for supported consumers. 5. Record a changelog entry. 6. Mark replaced records as deprecated rather than deleting them. ## Guardrails - Never silently reuse a production ID in another environment. - Reject duplicate `(name, cluster, environment)` entries. - Require explicit confirmation for program ID changes. - Keep secrets and private keys out of the registry. - Treat upgrade-authority data as unverified unless supplied by an approved internal process. ## Acceptance criteria - A developer can retrieve the correct program ID using name, cluster, and environment. - A pull request clearly shows every changed program ID. - Deprecated entries remain discoverable with replacement guidance. - Generated configuration fails loudly when a required record is missing. - The registry can be reviewed without access to deployment credentials. ## Possible outputs - JSON or YAML registry - TypeScript and Rust config generators - CI validation command - Human-readable changelog - Lightweight web view with filtering and copy controls

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Signer Intent Preview **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Wallet and dApp teams **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Help users understand what they are being asked to sign before approving a Solana transaction or message. ## Core problem Raw instructions, account addresses, and token amounts can be difficult to interpret. Users need a concise, structured explanation that clearly separates: - What the app requests - Which accounts may change - What assets may move - Which details are unknown or unverifiable ## MVP A client-side library that accepts a transaction or message plus optional application metadata and returns: ```ts type IntentPreview = { title: string summary: string actions: Array<{ type: "transfer" | "swap" | "stake" | "approve" | "call" | "unknown" description: string assets?: Array<{ mint?: string amount?: string direction: "in" | "out" | "unknown" }> }> affectedAccounts: Array<{ address: string role: "signer" | "payer" | "recipient" | "program" | "unknown" }> warnings: string[] confidence: "high" | "medium" | "low" } ``` ## Safety rules - Never describe an unknown instruction as safe. - Display raw addresses alongside shortened labels. - Show token mint addresses when symbols are supplied externally. - Mark unresolved accounts, amounts, and program behavior as **Unknown**. - Keep application-provided labels visibly distinct from parsed data. - Require explicit user confirmation when warnings exist. ## Example user-facing output > **Review action** > This request may transfer **unknown amount of token mint `…`** from your account to `…`. > Program behavior could not be fully interpreted. > **Warning:** Review the raw transaction before signing. ## Acceptance criteria - Produces a preview without submitting or signing anything. - Handles partially decoded and unknown instructions. - Preserves exact raw values for audit display. - Includes deterministic fixture tests for known instruction types. - Allows wallet teams to replace wording without changing safety labels. - Logs no private keys or seed material. ## Extension ideas - Localization-ready message templates - Accessibility-first review screens - A red-team fixture library for misleading instruction layouts - A “why am I signing this?” explanation panel

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Triage Card **Format:** Reusable checklist **Audience:** Solana wallet, dApp, and transaction-service teams **Status:** Proposed; not tested or deployed ## Objective Provide a consistent, evidence-first process for diagnosing failed or missing transactions without guessing or repeatedly submitting requests. ## 1. Capture the incident - [ ] Record UTC timestamp and affected environment. - [ ] Save the client request ID. - [ ] Record wallet or signer type without exposing private keys. - [ ] Save the serialized transaction or message hash, if available. - [ ] Record the recent block reference used to build the transaction. - [ ] Record the RPC endpoint identifier and HTTP response details. - [ ] Redact secrets, tokens, and personal data before sharing logs. ## 2. Classify the symptom Choose one primary category: - [ ] Build error: instruction, account, seed, or serialization issue. - [ ] Preflight simulation failure. - [ ] Submission rejection. - [ ] Submission accepted but status is unknown. - [ ] Confirmation timeout. - [ ] Confirmed transaction with an unexpected program result. - [ ] Client-side display or indexing mismatch. ## 3. Preserve evidence before retrying - [ ] Do not blindly rebuild the transaction. - [ ] Check whether the original signature exists locally. - [ ] Query transaction status using the original signature when possible. - [ ] Compare the transaction’s block reference with the application’s validity window. - [ ] Save the exact program logs or error payload. - [ ] Note whether the user may have approved more than once. ## 4. Decide the next safe action ### If status is unknown - [ ] Poll using bounded intervals. - [ ] Show the user “processing” rather than “failed.” - [ ] Prevent duplicate approval while status is unresolved. - [ ] Escalate after the product-defined timeout with the signature and evidence attached. ### If simulation or submission failed - [ ] Display the actionable error category. - [ ] Map known program errors to plain language. - [ ] Rebuild only after identifying a specific stale or invalid input. - [ ] Require fresh user approval for materially changed transaction data. ### If confirmed but the UI is wrong - [ ] Treat chain-observed state as separate from cached UI state. - [ ] Refresh the affected account or application state. - [ ] Record the delay and source of the stale view. - [ ] Avoid claiming reversal unless the application explicitly supports it. ## 5. Exit criteria Close the incident only when: - [ ] Final transaction status is recorded. - [ ] User-facing state matches the observed result. - [ ] Duplicate-submission risk is resolved. - [ ] Root cause is labeled as confirmed, probable, or unknown. - [ ] A regression test or monitoring task is assigned for confirmed causes. **Operating rule:** Every retry must have a stated reason, a new evidence point, and a clear duplicate-risk assessment.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Resilience Harness **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams building wallets, bots, dashboards, and transaction APIs **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose A local test harness that helps teams verify how their application behaves when RPC responses are delayed, duplicated, incomplete, rate-limited, or temporarily unavailable. ## Core workflow 1. Define an RPC scenario from a built-in template or JSON file. 2. Run the application against a local proxy instead of a live RPC endpoint. 3. Inject controlled failures into methods such as: - `getLatestBlockhash` - `sendTransaction` - `getSignatureStatuses` - `getAccountInfo` - `getProgramAccounts` 4. Record requests, retries, backoff timing, and final user-visible outcomes. 5. Export a reproducible scenario and a pass/fail report. ## MVP features - Local HTTP proxy with configurable response scripts. - Failure modes: timeout, HTTP error, JSON-RPC error, malformed payload, stale response, and duplicate response. - Per-method controls for latency, failure rate, and response ordering. - Deterministic seed for repeatable test runs. - Request trace viewer with timestamps and correlation IDs. - Assertions: - retry count stays below a configured limit; - sensitive operations are not submitted twice unintentionally; - expired blockhashes trigger a refresh path; - read failures produce actionable UI states; - polling stops after confirmation, timeout, or cancellation. - JSON import/export for CI execution. ## Example scenario ```json { "name": "send-timeout-then-confirm", "rules": [ { "method": "sendTransaction", "action": "delay", "ms": 8000 }, { "method": "sendTransaction", "action": "return_error", "code": -32005 }, { "method": "getSignatureStatuses", "action": "return_fixture", "fixture": "confirmed" } ], "assertions": [ "sendTransaction_attempts <= 2", "no_duplicate_submission_without_user_confirmation", "eventually_reports_confirmed" ] } ``` ## Non-goals - Replacing a validator or full local cluster. - Measuring public RPC-provider performance. - Signing, broadcasting, or managing real funds. - Guaranteeing behavior for unmodeled provider quirks. ## Acceptance criteria - A developer can run one scenario with a single command. - The same seed produces the same injected sequence. - Failed assertions identify the request, timestamp, and expected behavior. - Exported scenarios run without access to production credentials. - CI exits nonzero when an assertion fails. ## Suggested interface - `harness init` - `harness run scenario.json` - `harness inspect run-id` - `harness export run-id --format json` ## Safety defaults Use mock keys and fixture transactions only. Bind the proxy to localhost, redact authorization headers, and require an explicit flag before allowing any non-local endpoint.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana PDA Derivation Workbench **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana developers debugging account addresses and seed logic **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Provide a deterministic workspace for deriving, comparing, and documenting Program Derived Addresses (PDAs) without requiring a live deployment. ## Core workflow 1. Enter a program ID. 2. Add one or more seed components: - UTF-8 text - Hex bytes - Public key - Unsigned integer - Raw byte array 3. Select a bump-search mode: - Search automatically - Test a specified bump 4. Derive the PDA locally. 5. Compare multiple derivations side by side. 6. Export a reproducible derivation record. ## MVP features - Program ID and seed validation - Explicit display of each seed’s byte representation - Seed length warnings - Derived address and bump output - Ordered seed-list comparison - “Likely mismatch” hints for: - Different text casing - Missing prefixes - Decimal versus little-endian encoding - Incorrect public-key conversion - Changed seed order - Wrong program ID - Copyable JSON and Markdown reports - No wallet connection required ## Example report ```text Program ID: <user-supplied value> Seeds: 1. UTF-8: "vault" 2. Public key: <user-supplied value> 3. u64 little-endian: 42 Bump: <derived value> PDA: <derived value> Reproduction note: Use the exact seed order and byte encodings shown above. ``` ## Safety and trust boundaries - Treat all pasted addresses and seed values as untrusted input. - Never request private keys or signing authority. - Label outputs as local derivation results, not proof that an account exists. - Keep network lookups optional and clearly separate from deterministic computation. ## Success criteria A developer can reproduce the same PDA from the exported record in another implementation and identify common seed-encoding mistakes without reading application source code.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Account State Diff Lab **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana developers testing instructions, programs, and integrations **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Help developers understand exactly how a transaction changes account state by comparing a captured “before” fixture with an “after” fixture. ## Core workflow 1. Import two JSON snapshots: **before** and **after**. 2. Identify accounts by public key. 3. Decode common fields when a schema is supplied. 4. Display added, removed, and changed accounts. 5. Highlight changes by category: - Owner - Lamports - Data length - Data bytes - Executable flag - Token-style balances or authorities 6. Export a review report for a pull request or support ticket. ## MVP interface ### Input panel - Before snapshot upload/paste - After snapshot upload/paste - Optional account schema - Optional transaction label ### Diff panel | Account | Change | Severity | Details | |---|---|---:|---| | Public key | Modified | Review | Data bytes changed | | Public key | Added | Review | New account detected | | Public key | Removed | High | Account absent from after-state | ### Review controls - Mark change as expected - Add reviewer note - Filter by severity or account - Copy stable report text ## Safety boundaries - Read-only analysis - No private keys - No transaction signing - No automatic RPC submission - Treat undecoded bytes as opaque data - Clearly label inferred interpretations ## Suggested report format ```text Transaction label: Compared accounts: Unexpected changes: Expected changes: Open questions: Reviewer: Decision: approve / investigate ``` ## Acceptance criteria - Identical snapshots produce an empty diff. - Byte-level changes show offset and before/after values. - Account additions and removals are distinct from modifications. - Invalid JSON produces an actionable error. - Reports remain useful without a schema. - Every decoded field identifies its schema source. ## Future extensions - Fixture versioning - Program-specific decoder plugins - Snapshot redaction - CI output for unexpected state changes - Side-by-side instruction metadata and account lists

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Desk **Format:** MVP product specification **Audience:** Solana teams supporting users with failed transactions **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Turn a transaction error into a readable support report: what evidence exists, what remains uncertain, and what the user can safely try next. ## Core workflow 1. User pastes a transaction signature or simulation error. 2. User selects the cluster and optionally supplies the app’s expected action. 3. The tool retrieves available transaction details through a configured RPC endpoint, or analyzes pasted logs without network access. 4. It produces a report that support staff can review and share. Never request a seed phrase, private key, or wallet signature. ## Report contents - **Lookup state:** Found, unavailable, or lookup failed. An unavailable transaction is not automatically classified as failed. - **Observed result:** Success, failure, or unknown. - **Failure location:** Instruction index and program identifier, when present. - **Error summary:** Plain-language explanation grounded in the supplied evidence. - **Evidence:** Relevant log excerpt and error code. - **Confidence:** Confirmed by evidence, possible explanation, or unknown. - **Next step:** One practical action, with any retry risks stated. - **Support export:** Copyable text with wallet addresses and signatures optionally redacted. ## Initial diagnostic rules | Evidence | Report behavior | |---|---| | Explicit insufficient-funds error | Identify the affected account or asset only when supported; do not assume SOL is the missing asset. | | Explicit expired-blockhash error | Suggest obtaining a fresh transaction; check the original outcome before retrying. | | Custom program error without a known mapping | Preserve the code and program identifier; mark the explanation unknown. | | Simulation logs only | Label the report “Simulation result—not evidence of submission or settlement.” | | No transaction returned | Suggest checking cluster and signature, then retrying lookup; avoid asserting a cause. | ## MVP boundaries Read-only diagnosis. No automatic retries, transaction construction, wallet connection, custody, or fund movement. Program-specific explanations require a versioned, team-maintained error map. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] Every explanation points to evidence or is explicitly marked uncertain. - [ ] RPC failure is distinguishable from transaction failure. - [ ] Unsupported custom errors remain unknown. - [ ] Simulation output cannot be mistaken for an executed transaction. - [ ] Exports exclude unrelated logs by default. - [ ] Pasted inputs are not retained by default; network lookups disclose the RPC provider receiving the signature. - [ ] Retry guidance warns users to verify the original outcome first. ## Commercial test Offer a paid setup package: configure one team’s error map, support-report template, and diagnostic fixtures. Validate willingness to pay before building a hosted dashboard. **Success criterion:** In a small support trial, agents produce accurate, actionable replies faster than with raw logs alone, without increasing unsupported diagnoses.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Event Replay Inbox **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams consuming wallet, program, or token events **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem Event-driven apps can miss, duplicate, or misprocess notifications. Teams need a simple way to inspect delivery state, replay safe events, and document failures without querying raw logs manually. ## Product A small operations inbox that stores incoming event records and provides: - Delivery status: `received`, `processed`, `failed`, `ignored` - Event identity and deduplication key - Slot, signature, program, account, and event type fields - Raw payload view - Processing attempts and error messages - Manual replay with confirmation - Filters for status, event type, signature, and time - Exportable incident record ## Core Workflow 1. Receive an event from an adapter. 2. Normalize it into a common event record. 3. Check the deduplication key. 4. Mark the event as received. 5. Run the configured processor. 6. Record success or failure with timestamp and error details. 7. Let an authorized operator replay failed events. 8. Preserve the full attempt history. ## Event Record ```json { "event_id": "internal-id", "dedupe_key": "network:signature:event-index", "network": "solana", "signature": "optional-signature", "slot": "optional-slot", "program": "optional-program-id", "event_type": "string", "status": "received", "payload": {}, "attempts": [], "created_at": "timestamp" } ``` Use placeholders in examples until real identifiers are supplied. ## MVP Scope - One ingestion endpoint - One processor adapter - Persistent event records - Idempotency protection - Failed-event queue - Replay action - Basic authentication - Searchable web table - Structured logs ## Safety Rules - Never replay automatically without an idempotency check. - Require confirmation before replaying an event. - Restrict replay access by role. - Redact secrets from payloads and logs. - Keep original payloads immutable. - Label manually replayed attempts separately. ## Acceptance Checklist - Duplicate deliveries do not create duplicate business actions. - Every processing attempt has a timestamp and result. - Failed events can be filtered and inspected. - Replay creates a new attempt without altering the original record. - Operators can identify the related signature when one exists. - Secrets are absent from rendered payloads and logs. - A processor error does not erase the received event. - Exported records contain enough context for incident review. ## Non-Goals - Blockchain indexing - Custody or transaction signing - Guaranteed event delivery - Automatic recovery of unknown processor errors - Replacing a full observability platform

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Treasury Approval Card **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Small Solana teams managing shared treasuries **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Purpose Turn a proposed treasury transfer into a readable approval card before anyone signs. Help reviewers catch wrong recipients, unexpected assets, and transfers that exceed internal limits. ## MVP Scope A read-only tool for reviewing **SOL and standard SPL Token transfers**. No custody, transaction signing, or execution. **Inputs** - Unsigned transaction, with explicit transaction-version support. - Team-maintained recipient address book. - Team policy: permitted assets, per-transfer limits, required reviewers. - Optional RPC connection for simulation and account checks. **Output** A shareable approval card plus machine-readable JSON. Unknown instructions or unsupported transaction formats block a “ready for review” result. ## Approval Card Template **Request:** `[internal reference]` **Purpose:** `[requester-entered explanation]` **Network:** `[selected cluster]` **Source:** `[full address]` **Recipient:** `[full address]` **Address-book match:** `[exact match / unknown / mismatch]` **Asset:** `[SOL or mint address; symbol is secondary]` **Amount:** `[raw units + formatted amount]` **Other effects:** `[account creation, authority changes, or unsupported effects]` **Fee estimate:** `[value, timestamp, or unavailable]` **Simulation:** `[passed / failed / unavailable; timestamp]` **Policy result:** `[within limits / exception required / blocked]` **Required reviewers:** `[team-configured count or roles]` **Review digest:** `[hash of reviewed transaction message and policy version]` **Warning:** Simulation is not a guarantee of execution or safety. Address-book matches reflect team entries, not independent verification. ## Review Rules 1. Show full addresses; never rely on shortened addresses for approval. 2. Identify tokens by mint address, not symbol alone. 3. Distinguish a token account destination from its owner; show both when resolved. 4. Display every instruction. Never silently ignore an unknown instruction. 5. Block review completion if address lookup tables cannot be resolved. 6. Flag any transfer to an unlisted recipient or any amount above policy limits. 7. Invalidate approval when the transaction message changes, including its blockhash. Refresh stale checks before signing. 8. Never label a transaction “safe.” Use “ready for human review.” ## Acceptance Tests - A familiar symbol on an unlisted mint triggers an asset exception. - A one-character recipient mismatch does not match the address book. - A transfer bundled with an unsupported instruction is blocked. - Missing decimals produce an unresolved amount, not a guessed value. - RPC failure shows checks as unavailable rather than passed. - A changed transaction message invalidates the previous review digest. ## Commercial Hypothesis Offer the card generator as a lightweight treasury-review utility, with paid team policies and audit exports. Test willingness to pay using mock transactions before building signing integrations. **Success measure:** Reviewers can identify the recipient, asset, amount, and policy exceptions without decoding raw transaction instructions.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Reliability Runbook **Format:** Reusable checklist **Audience:** Solana teams operating apps, bots, dashboards, or APIs **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Goal Reduce avoidable downtime by making RPC failures observable, diagnosable, and recoverable without relying on guesswork. ## Endpoint Inventory For each RPC endpoint, record: - Provider and environment: development, staging, production - URL or secret reference - Intended workloads - Rate and concurrency limits - Supported commitment levels - WebSocket availability - Owner and escalation contact - Last verification date Never place API keys or private credentials in tickets, logs, or public documents. ## Health Checks Run on a schedule and before major releases: - Basic connectivity request succeeds - Latest block information is returned - Recent transaction status can be queried - Account lookup returns a valid response - WebSocket subscription opens, receives an update, and closes cleanly - Timeout and retry behavior match application expectations - Response latency and error counts are recorded separately ## Failure Classification Tag each incident with one primary category: - **Authentication:** invalid or expired credential - **Capacity:** throttling, queueing, or concurrency exhaustion - **Availability:** timeout, connection refusal, or service interruption - **Data freshness:** stale slot or delayed subscription - **Application misuse:** malformed request or unsupported parameter - **Network mismatch:** wrong cluster or environment ## Response Procedure 1. Capture timestamp, cluster, request type, commitment, and sanitized error. 2. Check whether failures affect one endpoint or multiple endpoints. 3. Compare a minimal read request with the failing request. 4. Reduce retry pressure; avoid synchronized retry loops. 5. Route eligible read traffic to a preconfigured secondary endpoint. 6. Preserve the original failure sample. 7. Notify the owner when an agreed threshold is crossed. 8. Record the resolution and update the relevant test or alert. ## Minimal Incident Record ```text Incident ID: Started: Detected by: Cluster/environment: Affected feature: Endpoint class: First failing request: Sanitized error: Observed scope: Mitigation: User impact: Root cause/status: Follow-up owner: Due date: ``` ## MVP Acceptance Criteria - Endpoint inventory is stored in one shared location. - Automated checks produce timestamped results. - Alerts distinguish auth, capacity, availability, and freshness failures. - Applications use bounded retries with jitter. - A documented fallback exists for read-only traffic. - Every incident ends with a short recorded diagnosis or an explicit “unknown” status. ## Design Principle Fail visibly, fail safely, and leave enough evidence for the next person to reproduce the problem.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Token Metadata QA Gate **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams launching tokens, collectibles, or wallet-facing assets **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem Token launches can fail quietly when mint settings, metadata, images, or authority configuration are inconsistent. Teams need a repeatable pre-launch check before sharing a mint address publicly. ## Product A small web or CLI tool that accepts a mint address and metadata URI, then produces a human-readable launch-readiness report. ## MVP inputs - Network selection - Mint address - Metadata URI, if available - Optional expected values: - Token name and symbol - Decimals - Supply - Intended authority state - Image URL ## Checks ### Mint configuration - [ ] Address format is valid - [ ] Decimals match the expected value - [ ] Report current mint authority state - [ ] Report current freeze authority state - [ ] Compare observed supply with supplied expectation - [ ] Flag unexpected authority changes ### Metadata - [ ] URI is present and retrievable - [ ] Response is valid JSON - [ ] Required display fields are present - [ ] Name and symbol match the expected values - [ ] Image field exists - [ ] Image URL is retrievable - [ ] Content type and file size are displayed - [ ] Broken or redirected resources are clearly flagged ### Release hygiene - [ ] Generate a final immutable report - [ ] Include timestamp, network, and checked addresses - [ ] Separate errors from warnings - [ ] Provide copy-ready “pass,” “review,” or “blocked” status - [ ] Never expose private keys or request signing authority ## Example report ```text STATUS: REVIEW Mint: <address> Network: <selected network> ERRORS - Metadata URI returned invalid JSON. WARNINGS - Freeze authority is still present. - Image URL redirects to another host. PASSED - Mint address format - Decimals: 6 - Name and symbol match expected values NEXT ACTION Repair metadata JSON, then run the check again. ``` ## UX requirements - No wallet connection required for read-only checks - Plain-language explanations beside technical fields - JSON and Markdown export - Stable result codes for CI integration - Explicit disclaimer that the tool does not verify ownership, legitimacy, or investment value ## Suggested implementation phases 1. Read-only checker with Markdown output 2. Browser interface and shareable reports 3. CI command with configurable policies 4. Optional team templates for launch-specific expectations

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Triage Kit **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams supporting users through failed or confusing transactions **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem When a transaction fails, users often provide only “it didn’t work.” Support and engineering then spend time reconstructing the wallet, instruction, account state, and failure context. ## Product A lightweight browser tool or SDK that creates a safe, shareable **transaction triage packet** before and after submission. ### Core workflow 1. User connects a wallet or pastes a transaction signature. 2. Tool captures: - Network/cluster - Wallet address - Client and app version - Instruction labels, when available - User-entered action and expected result - Simulation or submission outcome - Error text and logs, if available 3. Tool redacts configurable fields. 4. Tool generates: - A human-readable incident summary - A JSON export for engineers - A copyable support message 5. Team marks the issue as: - Reproducible - User-specific - Account-state related - RPC/provider related - Unknown ## MVP requirements - Wallet address and signature input - Cluster selection with an explicit default - Client-side redaction before export - Error and log capture - Required “expected vs. observed” fields - Stable JSON schema - Copy-to-clipboard support - No private keys, seed phrases, or signing authority - Clear notice that the packet is diagnostic, not proof of root cause ## Suggested packet schema ```json { "cluster": "", "signature": "", "wallet": "", "appVersion": "", "action": "", "expected": "", "observed": "", "error": "", "logs": [], "redactionsApplied": [], "createdAt": "" } ``` ## Success criteria - A support agent can request one standardized packet. - An engineer can reproduce the reported context without a long chat thread. - Sensitive fields are visibly redacted before sharing. - Users understand whether the transaction was simulated, submitted, confirmed, or only inspected. ## Safety and trust - Treat pasted signatures and RPC responses as untrusted input. - Escape logs when rendering them. - Never request secret material. - Make all network calls visible to the user. - Allow packet deletion and local-only export. ## Positioning copy **“Turn ‘my transaction failed’ into an actionable debugging packet—without asking users for secrets.”**

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Program Release Readiness Checklist **Format:** Reusable engineering checklist **Audience:** Solana teams preparing a program, SDK, or frontend release **Status:** Proposed; not validated ## 1. Scope and compatibility - [ ] Write the release purpose in one sentence. - [ ] List changed programs, instructions, accounts, clients, and dependencies. - [ ] Identify whether existing account layouts remain compatible. - [ ] Document required Solana runtime, Anchor, compiler, and SDK versions. - [ ] Define supported clusters and deployment addresses. - [ ] Record any migration or rollback requirements. ## 2. Program safety - [ ] Add tests for every changed instruction. - [ ] Test signer, ownership, PDA, account-size, and authority constraints. - [ ] Test malformed accounts, unexpected token mints, zero values, and boundary values. - [ ] Confirm arithmetic cannot underflow or overflow. - [ ] Test replay, duplicate execution, and unauthorized upgrade paths. - [ ] Verify emitted events contain no sensitive data. - [ ] Review compute-unit and account-count limits under worst-case inputs. ## 3. State and migration - [ ] Describe old and new account schemas. - [ ] Provide deterministic migration instructions. - [ ] Make migrations resumable and safely repeatable where possible. - [ ] Estimate rent and compute requirements. - [ ] Define how partially migrated state is detected. - [ ] Preserve or explicitly version program configuration. ## 4. Client integration - [ ] Update generated types, IDLs, constants, and address registries. - [ ] Add client tests for success and expected failure cases. - [ ] Confirm users receive actionable error messages. - [ ] Verify transaction construction against the intended cluster. - [ ] Test stale blockhash, dropped transaction, retry, and confirmation behavior. - [ ] Confirm UI copy matches actual instruction behavior. ## 5. Release controls - [ ] Record the exact build inputs and source revision. - [ ] Require two-person review for deployment configuration. - [ ] Rehearse deployment and rollback in a non-production environment. - [ ] Define an incident owner and escalation channel. - [ ] Prepare release notes with breaking changes and migration steps. - [ ] Publish a post-release verification checklist. ## 6. Post-release verification - [ ] Confirm deployed program and client addresses match the release record. - [ ] Run a minimal end-to-end smoke test. - [ ] Check error rates, confirmation delays, and compute usage. - [ ] Review unexpected account or instruction patterns. - [ ] Capture issues, decisions, and follow-up owners. **Release gate:** Do not mark the release ready until every unchecked item has an owner, a documented exception, or a completed action.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Treasury Approval Guard **Format:** MVP product specification **Audience:** Small Solana teams managing shared operating funds **Status:** Proposed; not built or validated ## Problem A treasury payment needs more context than a destination and amount. Teams need to know who requested it, why it is needed, whether the recipient changed, and which approvals remain outstanding. ## Product A lightweight payment-request inbox that checks team-defined rules and produces a review packet for a separate treasury signing workflow. **Boundary:** The product never holds private keys, signs transactions, or treats an internal approval as an onchain authorization. ## Core workflow 1. **Request:** Submit network, source treasury, recipient, asset mint or native SOL, amount, purpose, and optional invoice reference. 2. **Check:** Flag unknown recipients, changed addresses, possible duplicates, and requests exceeding configured limits. 3. **Review:** Show the exact payment details alongside policy results. Reviewers approve or reject with a note. 4. **Export:** Generate a human-readable packet and machine-readable JSON for the team's existing signing process. 5. **Reconcile:** Accept a transaction signature; independently check its status and matching transfer details before marking the request paid. ## Minimum data model - `request_id`, `version`, `created_at`, `requester_id` - `network`, `source_address`, `recipient_address` - `asset_id`, `amount_base_units`, `display_decimals` - `purpose`, `invoice_reference` - `policy_version`, `policy_results` - `approvals[]`: reviewer, decision, timestamp, request digest - `transaction_signature`, `reconciliation_status` Store amounts as integer strings, not floating-point numbers. Never identify an asset by ticker alone. ## Default controls - Requesters cannot approve their own requests. - Every request requires at least one independent reviewer. - New or changed recipients require two independent reviewers. - Changing any payment field invalidates existing approvals. - Missing policy configuration blocks export. - A possible duplicate requires explicit acknowledgment; it is not automatically rejected. - Recipient labels are conveniences, not proof of ownership. ## States `Draft → Review required → Approved → Exported → Paid` Additional states: `Rejected`, `Cancelled`, `Verification pending`, `Mismatch`. Exporting does not mark a payment paid. RPC failures leave verification pending. A mismatched transaction requires investigation rather than automatic completion. ## Acceptance tests - Editing an approved recipient resets approvals. - Changing a mint while retaining its ticker triggers a fresh review. - Repeated submissions with matching payment details produce a duplicate warning. - The same signature cannot reconcile two requests. - A successful but unrelated transaction cannot mark a request paid. - Reconciliation requires the configured confirmation threshold and matching network, source, recipient, asset, and amount. - Exported packets include the request version and digest so reviewers can detect stale details. ## MVP scope One treasury per workspace, native SOL and standard SPL token transfers, manual recipient registry, configurable approval thresholds, JSON export, and an append-only audit history. Unsupported token extensions and complex transfers are blocked with an explanation. **Not included:** Custody, swaps, automated execution, fiat conversion, or accounting integrations. ## Commercial hypothesis Offer a fixed-price setup pilot covering policy configuration and a sample reconciliation exercise. Test whether teams value reduced review effort before building subscription billing.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Intent Preview **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams building wallet-connected applications ## Problem Users often approve transactions without a clear understanding of which accounts will be affected, what instruction is being called, or whether the transaction contains multiple actions. Teams need a consistent, reviewable transaction summary before wallet approval. ## Product A lightweight SDK that converts a prepared Solana transaction into a human-readable **intent preview**. ### Example preview > **You are about to:** > - Deposit 10 USDC into Vault A > - Approve 1 token transfer > - Pay network fees from `…7Kp2` > > **Programs involved:** > - `…TokenProgram` > - `…VaultProgram` > > **Review:** 2 instructions · 4 writable accounts · estimated fee shown only if available ## MVP scope ### SDK API ```ts const preview = await createIntentPreview({ transaction, connection, labels: { vault: "Savings Vault", usdcMint: "USDC" } }); ``` Returns: ```ts { title: "Deposit into Savings Vault", actions: [...], programs: [...], writableAccounts: [...], signerAccounts: [...], feePayer: "...", warnings: [...] } ``` ### Warning rules Flag, without blocking: - Unknown program IDs - Multiple instructions - Unexpected writable accounts - Signers other than the connected wallet - Token transfers lacking a recognized mint label - Fee payer differing from the connected wallet - Unsupported instruction formats ## UI requirements - Show the preview immediately before wallet submission. - Group actions by instruction. - Display shortened addresses with copy controls. - Distinguish team-provided labels from raw chain data. - Include “View raw transaction” for advanced users. - Require explicit confirmation when warnings exist. ## Safety boundaries - Do not claim that a preview guarantees successful execution. - Do not infer economic value from token metadata alone. - Treat decoded instruction data as untrusted input. - Keep signing inside the wallet adapter; the SDK never holds private keys. ## Acceptance criteria - A developer can integrate the preview with one function call. - Every instruction appears in raw form, even when decoding fails. - Unknown programs produce a visible warning. - The UI remains usable when RPC metadata is incomplete. - Snapshot tests cover known, unknown, and multi-instruction transactions. ## Suggested pricing shape Open-source decoder core; paid hosted label management, team policy rules, and audit exports.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Event Delivery Ledger **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams consuming on-chain events through webhooks, indexers, or internal workers ## Problem Event-driven applications can process the same event twice, miss delivery attempts, or lack a clear explanation for delayed downstream actions. Teams need a small, auditable layer between event ingestion and business logic. ## Product A service that records each observed event, assigns a deterministic idempotency key, tracks delivery attempts, and exposes replay controls. ## Core workflow 1. Receive an event from an approved ingestion source. 2. Normalize it into a versioned envelope. 3. Store the envelope before dispatching. 4. Deliver it to a configured consumer. 5. Record success, failure, response metadata, and retry timing. 6. Allow an operator to pause, retry, or replay an event. The system should distinguish **observed**, **queued**, **delivered**, **failed**, and **replayed** states. It must not represent ingestion as proof that a business action completed. ## Event envelope ```json { "event_id": "source:network:signature:instruction_index", "schema_version": 1, "observed_at": "timestamp", "source": "configured-source", "network": "configured-network", "signature": "optional-reference", "payload": {}, "delivery": { "status": "queued", "attempts": 0, "last_error": null } } ``` If a stable source identifier is unavailable, the system should require an explicit deduplication key rather than silently guessing. ## MVP interface - Event list with filters for status, source, and date. - Event detail page showing raw payload, normalized payload, and delivery history. - Retry button with confirmation. - Replay button that creates a new delivery job while preserving the original event. - Dead-letter queue for events exceeding the retry limit. - Read-only API for downstream status checks. ## Safety and controls - Authenticate every ingestion and operator endpoint. - Encrypt credentials and redact secrets from logs. - Enforce per-consumer retry limits and exponential backoff. - Require a reason for manual replay. - Preserve an immutable audit record for state changes. - Make confirmation/finality policy configurable and visible to consumers. ## Acceptance criteria - Duplicate input with the same idempotency key does not create duplicate business deliveries. - Every attempt has a timestamp, outcome, and bounded error message. - A failed event can be retried without mutating its original payload. - Operators can identify events that are stuck, repeatedly failing, or awaiting source confirmation. - Consumers can safely acknowledge receipt more than once. ## Non-goals - Guaranteeing chain finality. - Replacing the event source or indexer. - Automatically deciding whether a business action is financially safe. - Hiding source discrepancies or malformed payloads.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Readiness Gate **Deliverable:** MVP product specification **Audience:** Solana teams operating transaction-enabled web apps **Purpose:** Detect degraded RPC connectivity before users begin a transaction, without presenting infrastructure health as a guarantee of execution. ## Product A small frontend component plus server-side probe that reports whether an app’s configured RPC endpoints are ready for reads and transaction preparation. **User-facing states** - **Ready:** “Connection checks passed. Transaction execution is not guaranteed.” - **Degraded:** “Network connection is slow or inconsistent. Balances may be delayed.” - **Unavailable:** “We can’t prepare transactions right now. Please try again shortly.” - **Unknown:** “Checking connection…” Display “Last checked” beside every result. Never label a wallet balance as current solely because an endpoint responds. ## MVP behavior 1. Probe configured endpoints server-side every 15 seconds. 2. Verify that the endpoint belongs to the configured cluster. 3. Measure response latency and observe slot progression using a consistent commitment level. 4. Check whether a recent blockhash can be retrieved. 5. Publish a sanitized health response to the frontend; never expose provider credentials. 6. Expire results after 45 seconds without a successful refresh. **Proposed defaults, adjustable per team** - Three consecutive failed probes → unavailable. - Cluster mismatch → immediately exclude endpoint. - Response latency above two seconds on three consecutive probes → degraded. - No observed slot progression over 45 seconds → degraded, not a definitive outage. - Insufficient observations → unknown. These thresholds are starting configuration, not claims about network performance. ## Transaction boundary - Keep one endpoint pinned throughout transaction preparation. - If preparation switches endpoints, discard the unsigned transaction and rebuild it. - Never automatically ask for another signature or resubmit after an ambiguous submission outcome. - A readiness result does not establish whether an earlier transaction succeeded. - Block new transaction preparation when unavailable or unknown; allow read-only navigation with a stale-data warning. ## Minimal health payload ```json { "state": "degraded", "checkedAt": "<ISO-8601 timestamp>", "expiresAt": "<ISO-8601 timestamp>", "reasonCodes": ["HIGH_LATENCY"], "canPrepareTransaction": true } ``` Do not include wallet addresses, transaction contents, endpoint URLs, or authentication tokens. ## Acceptance checklist - [ ] A wrong-cluster endpoint is never selected. - [ ] Cached health cannot remain “ready” after expiry. - [ ] One failed probe does not trigger endpoint flapping. - [ ] Restored endpoints require three consecutive passing probes before reuse. - [ ] Provider errors are mapped to safe reason codes. - [ ] Endpoint switching never silently reuses an unsigned transaction. - [ ] Monitoring logs contain no provider credentials. - [ ] UI remains usable when the health service itself fails. **Packaging hypothesis:** Offer a fixed-scope integration comprising the probe, readiness component, configuration guide, and failure-mode tests. Validate willingness to pay before building a hosted service.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Admin Action Preview **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams building dashboards for privileged or irreversible actions ## Problem Users can misunderstand what an admin action will change, which accounts it affects, or whether it can be reversed. A standardized preview step can reduce accidental operations without requiring users to expose private keys. ## Product Add an **Action Preview** panel before signing any privileged transaction. ### Required preview fields - **Action name:** Plain-language description - **Program and instruction:** Human-readable identifiers - **Authority required:** Role or signer type, without displaying secrets - **Accounts affected:** Address, label, and read/write status - **Assets affected:** Token, amount, decimals, and direction when applicable - **State changes:** Before/after values where determinable - **Reversibility:** Reversible, partially reversible, or irreversible - **Expected fees:** Clearly labeled estimate, not a guarantee - **Expiry:** Block or time limit for stale previews - **Support reference:** Local request ID for troubleshooting ### User flow 1. User selects an administrative action. 2. Backend or client builds an unsigned transaction. 3. Interface renders the Action Preview. 4. User explicitly confirms the displayed effects. 5. Wallet opens for signing. 6. Interface records success, rejection, or simulation failure. 7. User receives a compact result summary and request ID. ## Safety requirements - Never request seed phrases or private keys. - Do not imply that simulation guarantees execution. - Warn when account state may change between preview and confirmation. - Disable confirmation if required accounts or authority checks are missing. - Show unknown or dynamic fields as **“Not determinable before execution.”** - Require a second confirmation for irreversible actions. - Keep sensitive account metadata out of public logs. ## Acceptance criteria - A user can identify the action, authority, affected accounts, and reversibility before signing. - Failed simulation prevents accidental one-click confirmation. - Every outcome has a request ID and timestamp. - The preview is available in the team’s support workflow. - Tests cover missing accounts, stale previews, rejected signatures, and changed state. ## Suggested copy **Review before signing** “This transaction requests permission to change the settings shown below. Review the affected accounts and reversibility. Simulation is informative, not a guarantee of execution.” **Unknown effect** “This value cannot be determined until execution. Continue only if you trust the instruction and authority.” **Completed** “Request submitted. Save this reference for support: `{request_id}`.”

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Failure Triage Card **Deliverable:** Reusable support checklist **Audience:** Solana apps handling user reports of failed or apparently stuck transactions **Purpose:** Produce an actionable incident record without collecting wallet secrets or encouraging duplicate payments. ## 1. Collect the minimum evidence - **User’s intended action:** Swap, deposit, mint, transfer, or other. - **App environment:** Production/test environment, app version, browser, wallet name/version. - **Approximate attempt time:** Include timezone. - **Transaction signature:** If available; never substitute a wallet address. - **Visible error:** Exact text or redacted screenshot. - **Current UI state:** Awaiting approval, submitting, pending, failed, or successful. - **Expected versus observed outcome:** Describe assets and amounts without requesting unrelated balances. **Safety rule:** Never request seed phrases, private keys, recovery codes, or remote wallet access. Treat signatures and addresses as potentially identifying; collect them privately when possible. ## 2. Classify before recommending another attempt | Observation | Working category | Next check | |---|---|---| | Wallet prompt never appeared | Connection or request construction | Capture app error and wallet connection state | | User rejected the prompt | Approval declined | Explain that approval was not completed; do not automatically retry | | Signed, but no signature recorded by app | Submission outcome unknown | Inspect available submission logs; do not assume nothing was sent | | Signature exists, status unavailable | Unresolved submission | Confirm cluster and inspect status through the team’s configured infrastructure | | Transaction has an execution error | Execution failure | Capture error, program logs, and instruction context | | Transaction succeeded, app disagrees | UI or reconciliation issue | Check confirmation handling, cached state, and expected account changes | **Important:** These are triage categories, not proven root causes. A timeout or missing status alone does not establish that the action failed. ## 3. Retry gate Before presenting **“Try again,”** confirm: - [ ] The original attempt’s outcome has been investigated. - [ ] The app is not still submitting or reconciling that attempt. - [ ] Duplicate execution risk has been assessed. - [ ] Quotes, deadlines, and transaction parameters will be refreshed where applicable. - [ ] The user will review any newly constructed transaction. - [ ] If the outcome remains unknown, the UI says so rather than promising a safe retry. Do not recommend disabling simulation, increasing slippage, or adding funds merely to bypass an unexplained error. ## 4. Engineering handoff template ```text Incident ID: Intended action: Environment / cluster: Attempt time + timezone: App / wallet versions: Signature, if available: Exact error: Working category: Evidence checked: Observed transaction status + commitment + check time: Expected account changes: Observed account changes: Duplicate-execution risk: Next diagnostic step: Owner: ``` ## 5. Ready-to-use user copy **Outcome unknown** “We haven’t confirmed the outcome of this attempt. Please don’t repeat the action yet—it could execute twice. If available, send the transaction signature through our support channel. Never share your recovery phrase or private key.” **Execution failure observed** “This transaction reported an execution error. We’re checking the cause before recommending another attempt. A failed transaction may still incur a network fee.” **Success observed, display delayed** “The transaction shows success, but the app hasn’t reconciled the result yet. Refresh the activity view rather than repeating the action.” ## Completion criterion Close triage only when the record distinguishes **observed evidence**, **remaining uncertainty**, and **the next safe action**. An unresolved case remains unresolved—not silently relabeled as failed.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Program Upgrade Readiness Kit **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams preparing Anchor or native program upgrades ## Problem Program upgrades can fail because teams overlook account migrations, authority configuration, client compatibility, or rollback procedures. A lightweight readiness kit can turn upgrade planning into a repeatable checklist with evidence. ## Product A local-first CLI and markdown report generator that audits an upgrade package before deployment. ### Core commands ```bash upgrade-kit init upgrade-kit inspect ./program upgrade-kit check --config upgrade-kit.yml upgrade-kit report ``` ## Checks - Upgrade authority is explicitly configured and documented. - Program ID and deployment cluster are consistent. - Build artifacts are reproducible from a clean environment. - IDL or client types reflect intended instruction changes. - New account fields have migration or defaulting logic. - Existing account layouts are not unintentionally changed. - PDA seeds and bump handling remain compatible. - Transaction size and compute assumptions are documented. - Required config, environment variables, and key permissions are listed. - Pre-upgrade, post-upgrade, and rollback commands exist. - Test cases cover old-client and new-client behavior. - Observability signals identify failed migrations or rejected instructions. ## Configuration example ```yaml program_id: "REPLACE_ME" cluster: "REPLACE_ME" upgrade_authority_owner: "REPLACE_ME" artifacts: build_command: "REPLACE_ME" verify_command: "REPLACE_ME" migration: required: true command: "REPLACE_ME" rollback_notes: "REPLACE_ME" release: deploy_command: "REPLACE_ME" smoke_test_command: "REPLACE_ME" ``` ## Generated report The report contains: 1. **Release summary** — version, target cluster, commit, timestamp. 2. **Blocking findings** — unresolved failures that prevent release. 3. **Warnings** — items requiring human review. 4. **Evidence paths** — commands, logs, hashes, and test outputs. 5. **Runbook** — ordered preflight, deployment, smoke-test, and rollback steps. 6. **Sign-off section** — named owners and explicit approval fields. ## MVP acceptance criteria - Runs without network access by default. - Produces deterministic markdown from the same inputs. - Supports custom checks through shell commands. - Exits nonzero when blocking checks fail. - Stores no private keys or transaction-signing material. - Includes a sample fixture showing a failed migration check and its resolution. ## Positioning “Make every Solana program upgrade reviewable, reproducible, and reversible.”

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Event Replay & Indexer Integrity Kit **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams operating indexers, analytics pipelines, or backend services ## Problem Indexer bugs can silently create missing, duplicated, or misordered records. Teams need a repeatable way to compare indexed data with finalized chain observations and reproduce failures locally. ## Product A lightweight service and CLI that captures selected Solana transaction observations, stores normalized fixtures, and replays them through an indexer or parser for deterministic testing. ## Core workflow 1. Configure monitored programs, accounts, and commitment level. 2. Capture transaction metadata, instructions, inner instructions, logs, balances, and block context. 3. Redact configurable fields and save fixtures as versioned JSON. 4. Replay fixtures against a parser or webhook handler. 5. Compare expected and produced records. 6. Report missing events, duplicates, ordering differences, and schema changes. ## MVP features - CLI commands: - `capture` - `replay` - `diff` - `redact` - Fixture schema with: - slot and block time - transaction and message data - account keys - logs and inner instructions - parser version - Deterministic replay mode with mocked RPC responses. - JSON and human-readable diff reports. - Duplicate-event detection using configurable identity keys. - CI exit codes for failed comparisons. ## Example acceptance criteria - The same fixture produces the same normalized output across repeated runs. - A changed parser fixture clearly identifies added, removed, and modified fields. - Redaction removes configured account data before fixtures leave a local environment. - Duplicate and out-of-order records are detected in a synthetic test set. - A failed diff returns a non-zero CI status and a readable summary. ## Suggested architecture - **Capture adapter:** RPC client plus program filters. - **Fixture store:** Versioned files or object storage. - **Replay runner:** Mock RPC layer and parser harness. - **Comparator:** Schema-aware structural diff. - **Reporter:** CLI output plus machine-readable JSON. - **CI integration:** Exit status and artifact export. ## Non-goals for MVP - Replacing a production indexer. - Guaranteeing historical completeness. - Sending transactions or modifying on-chain state. - Supporting every program-specific decoding format automatically. ## Success signal A team can turn a reported indexing discrepancy into a reproducible fixture, run it in CI, and review a precise diff without querying live production data.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Wallet Compatibility Lab **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana dApp teams supporting multiple wallets and transaction flows ## Problem Wallet integrations can behave differently across adapters, mobile environments, signing methods, and transaction versions. Teams need a repeatable way to test compatibility before users encounter confusing failures. ## Product A small internal web tool that runs standardized wallet-flow checks and records comparable results. ## Core Test Flows 1. Connect and disconnect 2. Read public key 3. Sign a message 4. Sign and send a legacy transaction 5. Sign and send a versioned transaction 6. Sign multiple transactions 7. Reject a signature request 8. Switch network or cluster 9. Reconnect after page refresh 10. Handle expired or replaced blockhashes ## Test Record Each run stores: - Wallet name and adapter version - Browser and device category - App build identifier - Cluster selected by the test environment - Transaction format - Expected result - Actual result - User-facing error text - Sanitized technical error - Timestamp - Reproduction notes Do not store private keys, seed phrases, raw signed payloads, or unnecessary wallet data. ## Result States - **Pass:** Expected behavior observed - **Fail:** Reproducible mismatch or error - **Blocked:** Environment prevented execution - **Needs review:** Behavior differs by wallet or device ## Team Workflow 1. Define supported wallet and device combinations. 2. Run the baseline suite before each release. 3. Tag failures by flow, wallet, device, and app version. 4. Attach a minimal reproduction note. 5. Assign an owner and target release. 6. Re-run failed cases after a fix. 7. Export a compatibility summary for support documentation. ## MVP - Wallet adapter discovery - Manual test runner - Structured result form - Sanitized error capture - CSV/JSON export - Pass/fail dashboard - Test-case templates for legacy and versioned transactions ## Success Criteria - A support engineer can reproduce a reported wallet issue from one test record. - Engineers can compare behavior across wallets without reading raw logs. - Release checks identify regressions before public rollout. - Sensitive wallet material is excluded by design. ## Suggested Positioning **“A practical compatibility lab for Solana wallet flows—test once, document clearly, and ship with fewer integration surprises.”**

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Account Migration Dry-Run Tool **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana teams changing account layouts, PDA seeds, or program-owned state **Goal:** Preview migration impact before submitting on-chain changes. ## Problem Account migrations can fail because teams discover incompatible layouts, missing authorities, insufficient lamports, or unexpected account counts too late. Teams need a repeatable, read-only rehearsal. ## Product A CLI and JSON report generator that: - Reads configured program accounts from an RPC endpoint. - Decodes them using the current schema. - Applies a proposed migration transform locally. - Validates size, ownership, authority, PDA derivation, and rent funding assumptions. - Produces a reviewable report without sending transactions. ## Example command ```bash sol-migrate-dryrun \ --program ./program.json \ --source-schema ./schemas/v1.json \ --target-schema ./schemas/v2.json \ --accounts ./account-list.json \ --output migration-report.json ``` ## Report sections 1. **Summary** - Accounts scanned - Pass, warning, and failure counts 2. **Per-account result** - Address - Current owner - Decoded fields - Proposed serialized size - Required signer roles - Migration status 3. **PDA checks** - Seeds used - Derived address - Expected address 4. **Funding assumptions** - Additional lamports needed, if any - Funding payer configured 5. **Action list** - Blocking failures first - Warnings grouped by category ## Safety requirements - Read-only by default. - Never print private keys or full sensitive account data. - Redact configured fields in reports. - Mark estimates as estimates. - Require explicit confirmation before exporting a transaction plan. - Pin schema versions and record tool version in every report. ## Minimal configuration ```json { "programId": "...", "accountType": "Position", "redactFields": ["ownerNote"], "authorityRoles": ["upgradeAuthority", "migrationAuthority"], "fundingPayer": "configured-later" } ``` ## Acceptance criteria - A valid account produces a deterministic report. - A changed field layout is detected before transaction construction. - Incorrect PDA seeds produce a blocking error. - Undersized target accounts produce a blocking error. - Redacted fields never appear in JSON or terminal output. - Re-running against unchanged inputs produces the same report hash. ## Suggested first release Support one account type, JSON schemas, one migration transform interface, local report generation, and explicit human review before any transaction-building feature.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana RPC Failure Replay Kit **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana dApp engineers and support teams **Goal:** Turn intermittent RPC failures into reproducible, privacy-safe debugging cases. ## Problem A user reports that a transaction failed, but the team lacks enough context to distinguish wallet rejection, simulation failure, blockhash expiry, rate limiting, or an unreliable endpoint. ## Product concept A lightweight browser-side diagnostic module that records a short-lived, redacted event timeline for each transaction attempt and lets the user copy a support bundle. ## Event timeline Capture: - Request started - Wallet prompt opened - Wallet response: approved or rejected - Transaction signed - Preflight simulation result - Send result - Confirmation result - Timeout or client-side cancellation Each event includes: - Relative timestamp - Operation name - Error category - Safe, human-readable message - Optional request ID supplied by the app Do **not** capture private keys, seed phrases, signed message contents, or full user identity data. ## Support bundle Provide a **Copy diagnostics** action containing: ```text App version: Network configured by app: Wallet adapter: Transaction attempt ID: Started: Last known stage: Error category: Error message: RPC label configured by app: Recent event timeline: ``` The bundle should exclude raw authorization headers and redact signatures unless the user explicitly chooses to include a transaction signature. ## Error categories Use stable categories rather than provider-specific strings: - `WALLET_REJECTED` - `SIMULATION_FAILED` - `BLOCKHASH_EXPIRED` - `RPC_UNAVAILABLE` - `RATE_LIMITED` - `CONFIRMATION_TIMEOUT` - `USER_CANCELLED` - `UNKNOWN` ## UX requirements - Show a plain-language next step for every terminal state. - Keep diagnostics collapsed by default. - Offer “Try again” only when retrying is safe. - Never imply that a transaction succeeded without confirmation from the app’s configured policy. - Preserve the diagnostic bundle after a page refresh when feasible, with automatic expiration. ## Acceptance criteria - A support agent can identify the last completed stage from one copied bundle. - Sensitive wallet material cannot enter the bundle through default fields. - Every failure path maps to a stable category or `UNKNOWN`. - The UI remains usable when the RPC endpoint is unreachable. - Teams can disable diagnostics or configure retention duration. ## Suggested implementation boundary Ship as a framework-agnostic TypeScript package with: - `startAttempt()` - `recordEvent()` - `finishAttempt()` - `getSupportBundle()` - Pluggable redaction and storage adapters

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Transaction Status Explainer **Format:** Product specification **Audience:** Solana dApps with user-submitted transactions **Goal:** Replace vague “transaction failed” messages with clear, actionable status explanations. ## Core experience Show a compact status panel after submission: 1. **Preparing** - “Preparing your transaction…” 2. **Waiting for wallet** - “Approve this request in your wallet.” 3. **Submitted** - “Your transaction was submitted. Waiting for confirmation.” 4. **Confirmed** - “Transaction confirmed.” 5. **Rejected** - “You rejected the wallet request. Nothing was submitted.” 6. **Failed** - “The transaction could not be completed.” 7. **Uncertain** - “We could not verify the final result. Check your activity before trying again.” ## Required actions - Provide **Try again** only when retrying is reasonably safe. - Provide **View details** for technical information. - Provide **Copy transaction ID** when an ID exists. - Never label an uncertain result as failed. - Warn users before retrying actions that could be duplicated. ## Technical event model ```ts type TxStatus = | "preparing" | "awaiting_wallet" | "submitted" | "confirmed" | "rejected" | "failed" | "uncertain"; type TxRecord = { id: string; status: TxStatus; createdAt: string; signature?: string; errorCode?: string; userMessage?: string; }; ``` ## Error translation rules - Keep the user message short and non-technical. - Preserve the original error in expandable details. - Map known errors to stable internal codes. - Avoid exposing private keys, seed phrases, or sensitive request payloads. - Include a support reference ID generated by the application. ## Acceptance criteria - Every terminal state has a distinct visual treatment. - A rejected wallet request is not recorded as an onchain failure. - Submission and confirmation are represented separately. - Refreshing the page does not erase an in-progress status when recoverable state exists. - Users can distinguish “not submitted,” “submitted,” “confirmed,” and “unknown.” - Retry controls require an explicit safe-retry decision. - QA covers wallet rejection, submission failure, delayed confirmation, confirmed transaction, and ambiguous outcome.

# Self-Directed Draft: Solana Wallet Flow QA Checklist **Format:** Reusable pre-release checklist **Audience:** Solana teams shipping wallet-connected web apps **Goal:** Catch confusing, unsafe, or unrecoverable wallet flows before release. ## 1. Connection states - [ ] No wallet installed - [ ] Wallet installed but locked - [ ] User rejects connection - [ ] User connects the wrong account - [ ] User changes account after connecting - [ ] User changes network or cluster - [ ] User disconnects during an active flow - [ ] App reloads with an existing session - [ ] App clearly shows the connected public key ## 2. Transaction states Test each transaction with: - [ ] Valid transaction - [ ] User rejects signing - [ ] User rejects sending - [ ] Insufficient balance for fees - [ ] Expired or stale blockhash - [ ] Simulation failure - [ ] RPC timeout - [ ] Confirmation delay - [ ] Unknown final status - [ ] Duplicate submission attempt For every failure, verify that the UI: - [ ] Explains what happened in plain language - [ ] Distinguishes rejection, failure, and pending status - [ ] Avoids claiming success before confirmation - [ ] Provides a safe next action - [ ] Preserves form input where practical - [ ] Does not encourage blind retries ## 3. Transaction review Before signing, display: - [ ] Action the user is authorizing - [ ] Assets and amounts involved - [ ] Destination account or program context - [ ] Network or cluster - [ ] Expected fee treatment - [ ] Any irreversible consequences - [ ] A link or identifier only when available from the application’s own transaction state Never label an account as trusted merely because it is formatted correctly. ## 4. Data and privacy - [ ] Public keys are treated as user data - [ ] Secret keys, seed phrases, and wallet exports are never requested - [ ] Logs omit private payloads and unnecessary transaction contents - [ ] Error reporting has a documented redaction policy - [ ] Copy buttons identify exactly what will be copied - [ ] Sensitive values are not placed in URLs ## 5. Recovery behavior - [ ] User can retry after a transient error - [ ] Retry creates a fresh transaction when required - [ ] Completed actions are idempotent or clearly detected - [ ] Pending actions have a refresh or status-check path - [ ] Refreshing the page does not silently repeat an action - [ ] Support instructions include the app version, wallet type, cluster, and user-visible error—not secret material ## Release gate Ship only when every checked flow has: 1. A visible state, 2. A truthful status message, 3. A safe recovery path, and 4. A test record including wallet, cluster, timestamp, and result.