FAQ

FAQ

Is this a framework or a library?

Neither. It is a standard — four short specifications you implement in your own stack, the way you adopt OpenAPI or MCP. Nothing to install, no vendor dependency.

Does it lock me to a model or provider?

No. The standards say nothing about which model, runtime, or language you use. They constrain state, permission, routing, and governance — all of which live above the model.

Do I have to adopt all four standards?

No. Conformance defines three levels. L1 (Core) is GTS-1 + GPS-2 and prevents the worst failures on its own. Add GOP-3 for L2 and GOS-0 for L3 as you scale.

How is this different from an agent framework like LangGraph or CrewAI?

Those give you machinery to build multi-agent systems. This gives you constraints that make one accountable. They are complementary: you keep your framework and apply GTS-1 as a state shape, GPS-2 as a pre-execution gate, and GOP-3 as a policy on your routing loop.

Can I verify a conformance claim, or do I have to trust it?

Verify. There are 18 automated checks, stable requirement IDs to cite, and CI proving the suite on three operating systems and three Python versions. Requirements that cannot be machine-verified are listed openly and require published attestation — see Conformance §5.2.

Why publish the coverage gaps instead of hiding them?

Because the standard's own law GOS-0.16 requires honest failure. Claiming automated coverage the suite does not have would break the rule the project exists to enforce.

Is the license open source?

Yes — Apache-2.0, OSI-approved, with an express patent grant. Free for commercial use; keep the licence and NOTICE and state any changed files. The only condition is a naming one: a derivative that strips the safety invariants must be renamed and must not imply endorsement (Apache §6, Trademarks). See Adoption Guide.

Is the reference implementation production-ready?

No, and it is not meant to be. It is in-memory, single-process, dependency-free, and optimised for legibility — a conformance oracle you can read in one sitting. Your production implementation is yours to build.

What happens when the spec changes?

Semantic versioning with strict rules: requirement IDs never change meaning within a major version, retired IDs are never reused, and adding or promoting a MUST requires a MAJOR bump. Recorded in CHANGELOG.md.

I found a way to be "conformant" and still unsafe.

That is the most valuable report this project can receive — a specification flaw propagates to every implementation. Please report it privately first via SECURITY.md.

Can I write an implementation in another language?

Yes, and they are welcome. Port the 18 checks as your conformance suite. Implementations that strip the safety invariants (separation of powers, honest-failure, human-in-the-loop) must be renamed and must not imply endorsement.