ba0830a3d4
Phase 0 of docs/curated-to-mantra.md, item 3. Three strings in this tree spell "mantra" for reasons that have nothing to do with the brand, and until now nothing beside them said so: `SharedKeyDerivation.TWEAK_TAG` and `ChillDkgRitualManager.HOST_KEY_DERIVATION_TAG` are inputs to hashes, and `Relays.ephemeral` is a relay that is running. Each now carries a comment saying what renaming it would cost, and docs/shared-key-derivation.md gets the paragraph that ties the three together. **The comments come from the fork, and are rewritten rather than pulled.** The Curated fork found out what these strings were the hard way: it renamed the app twice, and each time had to decide which of thousands of "mantra" tokens were the brand. Its rebrand commits (3bc8be53, e6aee792) left these three alone and wrote down why, and run through the pull's name-rewrite those commits collapse to almost nothing but those comments. They were not taken as commits, because what survives the rewrite is a sentence like "has survived two rebrands -- Mantra to Curated, Curated to Mantra", which in this repository describes rebrands that never happened. The fact they state from this side is different and worth stating plainly: the fork keeps all three byte for byte, so a Mantra member and a Curated member of one group derive one key and talk to one relay, and a rename *here* would split them as surely as a rename there. **Why comments at all, when the derivation note already has the rule.** The note's one rule is about the path a key is derived along; it never said that the tag string itself is part of the derivation, and the failure mode of renaming it is silent -- every room orphaned, every partial signature aggregating to nothing that verifies, and nothing on screen to say so. A `v2` tag is the shape a deliberate change would take, and the comments say so, so that the next person to grep for the brand finds the answer before the diff. **`ComposeAppCommonTest` moves from `press.auxiliary` to `press.mantra`.** It is the KMP template's `1 + 2 == 3`, the last file under a package the app vacated two brands ago, and the fork relocated it rather than deleting it so the source tree has one root package instead of an orphan under an empty one. Same here; it is moved with `git mv` so its history follows. No behaviour changes. :composeApp:jvmTest 736 tests, 0 failures; :composeApp:testDebugUnitTest 403 tests, 0 failures; :composeApp:m3Audit all budgets met. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
mantra docs
Notes on the parts of this app whose behaviour is not recoverable by reading the code alone — where the reasoning lives in a protocol, a failure mode that is silent, or a decision that looked arbitrary and was not.
| document | covers |
|---|---|
| shared-key-ceremony.md | ChillDKG over NIP-17: the rounds, the approval gates, the chat transcript, participant ordering |
| shared-key-derivation.md | deriving further keys from the group's threshold key with FROST tweaks — why not BIP32, why no chain code, and the one rule that must not be broken |
| subgroups.md | a group making another group — the four ceremonies, what the parent's signature actually covers, and why the child's key is fresh rather than derived |
| frost-batch-signing.md | signing several events in one ceremony — why one nonce can never cover two messages, and the phased schema, wire and UI work that follows from it |
| marmot-membership.md | how members join an MLS group, and the epoch race that makes a missing member look like a successful invite |
| member-chronicle.md | handing a member added after the work was done the group's signed record — why the events are not on the wire at all, and why the room's id is enough to verify them |
| marmot-direct-messages.md | a one-to-one message inside a group as a stock NIP-59 gift wrap — what its MIP-03 carve-out costs, why the sender cannot read their own, and the one query that would broadcast it |
| mls-skipped-keys.md | why a group event that arrives a moment late is dropped for good, which flows trigger it, the quartz fix, and the partial mitigation in this app |
| long-running-sync.md | the chat subscriptions that stay open instead of pulling once per screen — why the request queue could not simply hold one, and how the group filter follows the room list |
| dead-code.md | code in the sync and relay stack that nothing calls, why each piece is still there, and which of it is a bug rather than a leftover |
| jvm-target.md | what desktop support cost, phased — why the native chain was already done, why an empty source set in our phoenix fork was the real blocker, and why DAO tests need none of it |
| material-design-conformance.md | what the M3 foundations actually require, measured against all 43 screens — the colour pairing that renders the app's own proposals invisible, and eight phases that put the decisions back in the theme |
| curated-to-mantra.md | pulling the Curated fork's thirty-nine commits back under Mantra's names — which lines of work to take, the three decisions, and a measured way to replay a twice-rebranded history without touching seven hundred files by hand |
Start with the ceremony if you are new to this area; the Marmot notes all assume it. Read the skipped-keys note before debugging any "the other device never got it" report — it is silent, and it looks like every other kind of delivery failure. The sync note stands alone, and the dead-code inventory reads as a follow-up to it. The batch-signing note is a phased plan that has been built: read it after the derivation note, whose one rule is the same one it is built around. The member chronicle note is a phased plan that has not been built, and reads as the membership note's unanswered half: what a member who joins late can be given, and the one thing they cannot. The jvm-target note is unrelated to all of them: it is a build and packaging story. The subgroups note is a phased plan that has been built; it assumes both shared-key notes and reads as the ceremony's second half — what a group does once it has a key, and what it can say about a group that does not yet. The Material Design note is a phased plan that has not been built, and is the only one about what the app looks like rather than what it does; read the jvm-target note first if you want to know why its adaptive-layout phase exists. The curated-to-mantra note is a phased plan that has not been built, though its dry run has: it is about the repository rather than the app, and reads alone, except that its first decision leans on the derivation note's one rule.