Who it is for. The person about to run a program a model wrote - on a laptop, in CI, behind an MCP server - who wants what it can touch bounded by what they said, not by what the program says about itself. It bounds programs written in Sabline, not a Python or shell script the same model might write instead.

See it refuse, in one command - no arguments, no network, under a minute. It writes the kind of script an agent writes (read ./.env, post it to a webhook), runs it with no budget given, and shows the refusal and the run's receipt; then the same task inside a budget:

pip install sabline-lang
sabline demo

error[E310] 'read_file' needs the 'fs' effect, which this run does not allow (it allows: io)
exit 1. receipt: refused; E310 (fs) at line 6; grants used: none
3 setting(s); the report is in out/report.txt

It writes what it runs and reads nothing of yours; --keep leaves the files, and sabline receipt show renders either receipt as a page.

This project was called Velaris until 8.6.0. The name belongs to an unrelated company in the same market (velaris.io), so it was given up rather than contested. Everything else is unchanged, and nothing written against the old name stops working in 8.x: the velaris command, import velaris, the VELARIS_* environment variables, a committed velaris.capabilities, and a velaris.audit/1 or velaris.receipt/1 document are all still read, each saying once that the name has changed. docs/renamed.md lists every published address and where it now points; STABILITY.md says what goes in 9.0.

pip install sabline-lang
sabline agent_output.vel

That program cannot open a socket, read a file, call Python, or ask the clock. Not "shouldn't" — the runtime refuses, and a refusal cannot be caught and carried past. You do not have to read the code, understand it, or trust the compiler's analysis of it.

Since 5.0 that is what a run with no --allow gets: io, the console. It used to be all seven effects, which meant the answer to "what may this program do?" was "everything" until an operator said otherwise. Widen it by naming what the program needs (--allow io,fs:read:./data); --allow all grants every effect and writes one line to stderr saying so.

--allow io,ffi:math,json grants Python for those modules only; a call that reaches any other module — named, or reached through an attribute of a granted one — is refused (E311). A granted module can still do whatever that module itself can do: ffi:os is the operating system. Since 3.0 the same grammar narrows every coarse effect: fs:read:./data, fs:write:./out, net:api.example.com:443, net:*.example.com, and @100 for at most that many operations in a run; env is its own effect, so an io-only program cannot read the environment. timeout and max_memory_mb are available through the library and every door, and on a door the operator's limits are ceilings a caller cannot raise. It is still not a security boundary - but the caveats every review raised, the ffi cliff, unbounded execution, and fs and net with no path or host list, are now precise permissions rather than holes. It is a real guard for the situation everyone is now in — running a program someone, or something, else wrote.

The other half: promises, proven

fn discount(price: Int) -> Int
    requires price >= 0
    ensures result >= 0
{
    return price - 10
}

error[E700] promise cannot be kept: 'discount' ensures result >= 0 - proven without running the program: price = 5 gives result = -5

That ensures is not a comment or a runtime assert. The Z3 theorem prover verifies it for every possible input before execution — and refutes it with an exact counterexample when it lies.

A rule the customer wrote

A commerce platform lets each customer write their own discount rule. This one has the shape most of them have: a percentage off once the basket passes a threshold, a flat amount off as well, and a cap on the two together.

record Rule {
    percent: Int         // this much off, once the basket is
    above: Money of INR  // worth at least this,
    flat: Money of INR   // and this much off as well,
    cap: Money of INR    // but never more than this, all together
}

fn discount_for(total: Money of INR, rule: Rule) -> Money of INR
    requires total >= money(0, "INR")
    requires rule.percent >= 0
    requires rule.percent <= 100
    requires rule.flat >= money(0, "INR")
    requires rule.cap >= money(0, "INR")
    ensures result >= money(0, "INR")
    ensures total - result >= money(0, "INR")
{
    let off = money(0, "INR")
    if total >= rule.above {
        off = percent_of(total, rule.percent, 100, "half_up")
    }
    off = off + rule.flat
    if off > rule.cap {
        off = rule.cap
    }
    if off > total {
        off = total
    }
    return off
}

The two ensures are what the platform needs to know about a rule it did not write: a discount is never a surcharge, and what is left after it is never negative. Both are settled for every basket and every rule the types allow, before the program runs. examples/discount.vel is the whole program —

proven, and it runs under --allow io.

examples/discount_bad.vel is the same rule with the last if deleted. The cap still holds the discount to a fixed ceiling; nothing holds it to what the basket is worth:

$ sabline check examples/discount_bad.vel
examples/discount_bad.vel:54: [E700] promise cannot be kept: 'discount_for' ensures total - result >= money(0, "INR") - proven without running the program: rule = Rule(percent: 0, above: 0, flat: 2, cap: 1), total = 0 gives result = 1

The amounts are in paise: a basket worth nothing, a flat discount of two paise held down to a cap of one, and one paisa handed back anyway. The program does not run.

A sandbox answers a different question. It can stop this rule reading a file or opening a socket; it cannot tell you whether the arithmetic holds.

A key it cannot print

Effects say a program printed something. They do not say whether what it printed was the secret. Secret of T (6.0, 7.0) is the other half: the compiler tracks the value, and refuses any program that hands it to anything that emits.

fn key() -> Secret of Text uses env {
    return env("API_KEY", "")          // env() gives a Secret of Text
}

fn authorization(k: Secret of Text) -> Secret of Text {
    return "Bearer " + k               // still a Secret of Text
}

examples/secret.vel reads an API key, builds the request that would carry it, and prints a summary of that request. examples/secret_bad.vel is the same program with one more line:

$ sabline examples/secret_bad.vel --allow env,io
error[E560] argument 1 of 'print' is Secret of Text, and 'print' performs io - a Secret cannot be printed, written, sent or passed to Python. It came from env(), line 27, through 'key', which returns Secret of Text (line 58)
  --> examples/secret_bad.vel, line 58

Nothing ran, nothing was logged, and no reviewer had to notice the line. A list of secrets, a map of them, or a record with one secret field carries it too, so the whole structure is refused at a sink — a Request record holding the key cannot be printed either.

And a program cannot look at the key either. key == "" is a Secret of Bool, not a Bool, and an if or while on one is E563. That is the rule that makes the rest mean something: with length and code_at, a plain Bool from == is not one bit, it is a loop that reads the whole key out —

while at < 3 {
    for c in alphabet {
        if code_at(key, at) == code_at(c, 0) {   // E563
            found = found + c
        }
    }
    at = at + 1
}
print("recovered: " + found)                     // the whole key

— so a rule that stopped print(key) and allowed that would be a decoration, not a type. The line is drawn at the branch.

declassify(value, "why") is the only way out. It needs uses declassify in the signature, a reason written in the call, and the declassify grant at run time — and it is what the audit reports, so a consumer can ask whether a program ever lets a secret out without running it:

$ sabline audit examples/secret.vel --json | jq .secrets
{
  "sources": ["env"],
  "declassifies": false,
  "declassifications": []
}

To look at a secret, a program says so — declassify(key == "", "…") gives back a Bool you can branch on, at the cost of the effect, the grant and a reason in the audit. That is the trade: not silence, a statement.

What this does not do: it only sees values env() and read_file_secret() produced, so a password read with read_line, or handed in through args(), or fetched from a vault over net, is an ordinary Text with no protection at all. And it is not non-interference — a program still chooses how long to run and whether to stop. SPEC.md §3.1 states the rules and THREAT_MODEL.md states the limits.

Related work

TACIT ("Securing Agents With Tracked Capabilities", ACM CAIS '26; arXiv 2603.00991) has agents write Scala 3, whose capture checking tracks file, network and command capabilities as values in the type system; CaMeL has a model turn the user's request into a restricted subset of Python and tags every value with its provenance and permitted readers, checking a policy at each tool call; WASI gives a WebAssembly module only the resources its host hands it. Sabline is a small language a model learns from a card of about 5,300 words, in which functions declare their effects, the runtime enforces the operator's budget at each operation, and contracts are checked by the Z3 theorem prover. From 6.0 it also tracks one kind of data: Secret of T, which env() and read_file_secret() produce and which cannot reach anything that emits, cannot be branched on, and leaves only through declassify — an effect of its own. That is narrower than what CaMeL and TACIT do: they tag every value with its provenance and permitted readers, and TACIT follows capabilities through polymorphism, where Sabline marks two builtins' results and refuses generic code over them unless a signature says so. Until 5.0 its command line also granted every effect when no budget was given, where a WASI module given nothing reaches nothing; from 5.0 a run with no budget gets io alone. The capability format is published separately, under CC0, as sabline-spec, whose PRIOR_ART.md sets out these differences and the older work in full. From 4.1 it holds a conformance corpus an implementation in any language can run -

ratchet, none needing a prover - written from this repository's suites and held to them by a drift test; sabline conformance runs it against this implementation, and CI does so on every leg.

Why Sabline

Why floats are proven in IEEE-754 rather than as real numbers, and what that costs: docs/floats.md.

Loops without written invariants are handled where the boring invariants suffice: the compiler proposes bounds on each counter and keeps the ones a loop step cannot break (see examples/inferred.vel). Anything richer — membership, sortedness — still needs an invariant line.

The prover never claims "proven without running" unless the counterexample is premise-complete — untranslatable assumptions abandon the proof to runtime checks rather than risk a false alarm. Soundness reports are treated as security issues.

Install

pip install sabline-lang
sabline doctor
sabline new hello && cd hello && sabline main.vel

Standalone executable (no Python required) — download for Windows / Linux / macOS from the latest release, then:

sabline doctor

With Python 3.10+:

pip install sabline-lang
sabline new hello && cd hello && sabline main.vel

Zero install — the playground runs the real compiler in your browser.

Optional extras for source installs: pip install ".[full]" adds z3-solver (compile-time proofs) and llvmlite (native speed); without them, promises are checked at runtime and everything runs interpreted — same language, honestly degraded. With llvmlite installed, native code is the default: a pure function the compiler can compile runs as machine code unless --no-native forces the interpreter. There is no --native flag.

Everyday ergonomics

keep_if(xs, fn(n: Int) -> Bool { return n % 2 == 0 })   // inline functions
format("hi {}, {} left", name, count)                    // text with holes
args()                                                   // command line
post(url, body) / fetch_status(url)                      // not just GET

Function values are lifted to real functions, so proofs and native compilation apply to them unchanged — and they can carry their own requires / ensures, proven like any other function's. A function value takes a copy of the locals around it when it is made (SPEC.md §12a); a promise on one that does is checked while it runs.

Where it plugs in

sabline script.vel                    the command (io unless you say more)
sabline script.vel --receipt r.json   and a signable record of what that run did
sabline eject script.vel              a directory that runs with nothing from here
import sabline                        a Python library
sabline mcp-install                   tools inside your assistant
sabline.mcpb                          double-click install for Claude Desktop
uses: gowrishankar-infra/sabline-lang a GitHub Action, findings in the Security tab
sabline capabilities check            CI fails when the capability surface widens
sabline serve                         an HTTP door for any language, token required
npx sabline-lang script.vel           npm, for the JavaScript world
%%sabline --audit --allow io          a Jupyter cell
- repo: sabline-lang (pre-commit)     a commit hook
docker run ... sabline check          a container
sabline build --for-everyone          standalone executables

Use it from your own program

import sabline

report = sabline.audit(source)      # what it touches, what's proven
run = sabline.run(source, allow={"io"})   # it cannot touch anything else
print(run.output, run.refused_effect)

The budget is enforced the same way it is on the command line. There is an MCP server too, so an assistant can write, audit and sandbox-run Sabline without leaving the conversation — see EMBEDDING.md and the versioned sabline.audit/1 format.

Calling run with a timeout or a memory cap starts a fresh interpreter every time. A pool keeps workers alive under one fixed budget:

pool = sabline.Pool(size=4, allow={"io"}, timeout=30, max_memory_mb=512)
result = pool.run(source)             # the same RunResult run() returns
pool.close()

200 sequential bounded runs of a small program: 46.6 s a process at a time, 0.5 s on a pool. pool.run takes no allow — the budget belongs to the pool, a worker is killed and replaced unless the run finished cleanly, and a reused worker has every piece of mutable state reset first. check_pool.py asserts each of those, including a program that widens its own budget through ffi and cannot widen it for the next one. The rules are stated in full in EMBEDDING.md.

A platform whose customers write the rules

examples/platform/ is that pattern as a small FastAPI service, in one file. A customer submits Sabline source; the service audits it, stores it with its capability surface, and answers with what it declares — effects, hosts, paths, modules, the proven share, its contracts function by function, and the narrowest budget that would run it. It does not run it. A surface wider than the platform permits is refused there, naming the grants that would have to be added. Running happens on a sabline.Pool whose budget is the platform's.

Submit examples/discount.vel and the answer says "proven_share": 100.0 with "status": "proven" on every promise, including the two that matter to whoever is taking the payment: the discount is never a surcharge, and what is left is never negative. That is the sentence a platform can show a customer before offering to enable a rule, and it is not one a sandbox can produce.

A program that calls your tools

sabline run agent.vel --tools tools.json \
    --allow io,tool:search@20,tool:send_email:to=*@corp.com

The runner's first cut (8.5). A host process offers a program tools through a manifest - a JSON Schema for each tool's arguments, a cost, a ceiling - and the operator's budget says which may be called and holds arguments to patterns. A call that is outside either is refused before the host hears of it, and the receipt records every call, the patterns that held it and the ceiling. examples/runner/host.py is a whole host in Python: it offers search and send_email, and the second example program is refused when it tries to mail outside corp.com. The protocol is JSON lines on standard input and output (docs/runner.md); there is no framework adapter yet, and a tool's result is not yet marked as the host's words rather than the program's - that is Untrusted, in 9.0. sabline skill verify reports the tools and the budget a skill's programs would need, without running them.

Written by a model, audited by you, run in a box

sabline card > card.md          # ~5,300 words: paste into any model
sabline audit script.vel        # what it can touch, before you run it
sabline attest script.vel --output script.intoto.json   # the same, bound to its bytes
sabline script.vel              # io, and nothing else, unless you say more

sabline audit is written for the reviewer: what the program reaches, what it promises, how much of that is proven rather than checked while running, what can fail, and the exact command to run it safely. sabline attest (4.2) puts that audit in an in-toto Statement whose subjects are the program's files by sha256, ready to sign with cosign or sigstore-python; EMBEDDING.md shows both, and every release carries one, signed, for an example program. agent_loop.py closes the circle — a model writes it, sabline check --json hands back errors with fixes, and it iterates until the program compiles and its promises prove.

From 8.3, the rest of a run's life: sabline eval runs a program as an evaluation harness does, under a profile its command line cannot relax (no net, ffi or env, time and memory limits, a stop honoured, the worker confined where the operating system offers it, and a receipt always - docs/eval.md); sabline receipts diff names what a run did that its audit, or its earlier runs, did not; sabline replay makes a run again from its receipt on the same bytes, or refuses; sabline test --from-contracts runs each promise on the inputs the prover finds its requires allows; and sabline verify holds an attestation or a receipt to its type and its bytes. docs/structurally-impossible.md lists what cannot occur in a Sabline program, each with a test, and docs/crosswalk.md maps each guarantee and each known gap onto the OWASP, AIUC-1 and NIST frameworks.

Running code you did not write

sabline agent_output.vel                 # io: it may print, nothing else
sabline agent_output.vel --allow io,fs:read:./data   # and read that folder
sabline agent_output.vel --allow all --deny net,ffi  # everything but these

The runtime refuses any effect outside the budget you grant, whatever the source claims — and a refusal cannot be caught and carried past. From 8.4 the operating system is asked to hold the same budget, so a fault in Sabline itself is refused by the kernel: Landlock and seccomp on Linux (full), a sandbox profile on macOS and a job object with a lowered token on Windows (both partial). sabline doctor says what your machine offers, a receipt says what a run got, and --no-confine turns it off (docs/confinement.md). Not a security boundary (ffi grants everything Python can do, and widens what the system is asked to hold), but a real guard for running a program you have not read.

Checking everything at once

sabline examples/stress.vel --allow clock,env,ffi:datetime,math,sqlite3,io,net:raw.githubusercontent.com
                                # 33 checks across the whole language
sabline examples/edges.vel --allow ffi:datetime,io
                                # 20 boundary, property and round-trip checks
python check_refusals.py        # 25 wrong programs, each refused correctly
python check_sandbox.py         # 39 escape attempts, each refused with its code
python check_confine.py         # the operating system holds the budget too (8.4)
python check_secret.py          # a Secret reaches nothing that emits it
python check_pool.py            # a pool must leak nothing between programs
python check_platform.py        # the reference platform refuses what it says it does
python check_ratchet.py         # every widening fails, nothing else does
sabline conformance             # sabline-spec's 456-case corpus, L1 to L3

One command that exercises the language, the standard library, the prover, native compilation, JSON, dates, CSV, the host language and the network.

Measured against other tools

each written three times with the same behaviour, in Sabline, in JavaScript for Deno, and in Python. One harness runs every program through every tool and records what was caught before running, what was caught while running, and what was missed. The twelfth category (7.1) is indirect authority: the calling code is the same before and after, and only a dependency's declared budget widened between two versions.

The ten Sabline misses are in the table by design. Two were there from the start: a loop that stops one item early with no contract to contradict, and a program that prints rm -rf build for its caller and touches nothing. Eight are in five categories added in 8.7 for Sabline to lose: a private file posted to the one host the task is granted, a second program run beside the one the task needs, and a granted library doing I/O of its own. Its four false positives are there by design too: two correct loops its termination rule cannot show end, and two correct results too big for a 64-bit whole number. Every row is in benchmark/RESULTS.md — regenerated by one command, python benchmark/run.py. The same programs against WASI, Starlark, a Python sandbox and CaMeL as well - each of which does better than Sabline on some of them, and the page says which first - are on /competitors.html.

Programs worth running

examples/ledger.vel — an expense tracker: records, integer cents, file persistence, sorted reports. examples/wordcount.vel — text analysis: sabline examples/wordcount.vel --allow fs:read,io <file> [n] counts word frequencies and prints a ranked histogram. examples/linkcheck.vel — a link checker you would actually run: sabline examples/linkcheck.vel --allow io,net <url> ..., non-zero exit when something is broken. examples/fetcher.vel — an HTTP tool: checks a status, then summarises a page, with every network call declared and every failure handled.

JSON

json_get(doc, "user.name")    json_int(doc, "user.age")
json_len(doc, "tags")         json_of(Person(name: "gowri", age: 30))

Paths walk objects and lists, every read can fail (a missing field is a possibility, not a crash), and none of it is an effect — parsing text is pure.

Reaching other languages

fn today() -> Text uses ffi or fail {
    let nothing: List of Text = []
    return try py("datetime.date", "today", nothing)
}

py / py_int / py_float / py_json call Python functions, and py_new / py_do / py_field / py_close hold real objects — a database connection, a session — so every library Python has is reachable — but only from a function that declares uses ffi, and it can fail like anything else that leaves your program.

The standard library reaches outside

import "http.vel" as http     import "db.vel" as db
import "time.vel" as time     import "env_tools.vel" as sys

check http.get(url) { ok body { ... } fail why { ... } }
check db.count(conn, "notes") { ok n { ... } fail why { ... } }

Written in Sabline, so they carry their effects — a program using http shows net, one using db shows ffi, and a pure function can call neither.

From 8.5 four of them talk to the services an operations script talks to, and none calls Python, so the audit of a program that uses one shows no ffi at all:

A token or a key goes in as a Secret of Text and the library says, in the audit, the one place it leaves: a bearer token through declassify with a reason that names the host, an AWS signature through hmac_sha256_chain, listed as hmac signature - the key itself never stops being a Secret (THREAT_MODEL.md says why that is sound). check_batteries.py runs each against a stand-in for its service on every CI leg. sabline-kit is a template repository that starts from the Azure script.

Libraries

sabline add https://example.com/geo.vel as geo   # vendored into lib/
sabline deps                                     # what you depend on
sabline deps --verify                            # unchanged since?

A library is compiled before it is accepted and kept in your repository where you can read it. No registry, no resolver, nothing fetched at build time.

sabline add writes sabline.lock beside sabline.toml: every vendored library with its source, the sha256 of the exact bytes that arrived, and the version of Sabline that added it. sabline deps --verify fails if a file's hash differs from the lock or a locked library is not on disk — a line worth having in CI. Adding a library that is already vendored, with different bytes, is refused with both digests printed; --force replaces it.

Imports

import "lib/geo.vel" as geo      // named: geo.distance(a, b)
import "std.vel"                 // flat: sort(xs)

A named import prefixes that library's functions, so two libraries that both export distance can be used in the same file. A program sent to the HTTP door or the MCP server imports only .vel files inside the directory the door serves, and the library does the same given import_root=; any other import is refused (E515) before the file is read (8.1).

Shipping a program

sabline build myprogram.vel      # one executable, ~90 MB
./myprogram alpha beta           # runs anywhere, nothing installed;
                                 # it takes --allow like the compiler

sabline build myprogram.vel --for-everyone   # a workflow that builds
                                             # Windows, Linux and macOS

Your program, its imports, the standard library and the compiler, in one file. It is compiled and proof-checked before it is built.

sabline eject myprogram.vel      # a directory that runs with nothing
python -I myprogram-ejected/main.py   # installed from this project

sabline eject (8.1) writes the program, its imports and a copy of the runtime into a directory whose main.py fixes the budget, checks every file's digest and refuses a budget that could let one run rewrite the next, with a pinned requirements.txt, the PyInstaller command, and a README saying what holds once ejected - the budget - and what does not: the proofs are a record of eject time, and no later fix reaches it.

Tooling

sabline trace program.vel (watch every call as it happens) · sabline test program.vel (runs every test_* function written in Sabline) · sabline check program.vel (compile without running; several files at once, --json for tools) · sabline explain program.vel (a walkthrough of every function: effects, promises, and whether they are proven — explain <folder> maps a whole project) · sabline repl (definitions are proof-checked as you type them) · sabline fmt (canonical style, --check for CI) · sabline lsp (errors as you type in any LSP editor; a VS Code extension lives in editor/vscode) · sabline doctor · sabline new · --json errors for automation.

Standard library

Written in Sabline, in stdlib/std.vel — and it keeps its own promises: sort carries ensures is_sorted(result), max_of requires a nonempty list, and violating a library requires is a compile error at your call site. Full reference, generated from the real compiler.

Numbers

Whole numbers are 64-bit. Arithmetic that outgrows that range is an error, not a silent wrap — and the same error whether your code is interpreted or running as machine code. Floats are IEEE-754 doubles, proven as such.

Money is neither. money(1250, "INR") is 12.50 rupees held as 1250 paise: an exact whole number of minor units, with the currency in its type, so INR meeting USD is a compile error and no Float goes near it. Dividing an amount says how it rounds — percent_of(claim, 25, 1000, "half_up") — or it does not compile, and money.split(payout, 3) gives parts that provably add up to the payout. See examples/settlement.vel and SPEC.md §4.3.

The reference

SPEC.md states precisely what the language means: semantics, evaluation order, effect propagation, what "proven" covers today, and what Sabline deliberately does not have — including why it has no concurrency model.

Stability

Semantic versioning: breaking changes only at major versions. STABILITY.md says what that covers - the language, the error codes, sabline.audit/1, the library API, the budget grammar and the command line - what it does not, the rules for deprecating and removing, and every time this project has broken the rule, 3.3 and 3.4 among them. CI tests every push on Linux, Windows and macOS, Python 3.10 and 3.12, with and without the optional dependencies. Errors are stable, numbered, and fully documented.

How much is proven

sabline proofs .            # how many promises are proven, file by file
sabline proofs . --min 80   # fails the build below 80%

Over this repository's examples and standard library, sabline proofs examples stdlib proves the promises of 70 of the

examples are built to be refused, and their promises are false on purpose.

Using Sabline in CI

The GitHub Action audits the Sabline programs in a repository - its .vel files - and reports what they may touch to GitHub code scanning. It does not read Python, JavaScript, Go or anything else: a repository with no .vel file prints no .vel files found and the job is green. The case it serves is narrow, and it is the one this language exists for - an agent wrote a script, the script is in Sabline, and the effects it declared and the promises it did not prove should land in the Security tab rather than in a reviewer's head.

Copy this into .github/workflows/sabline.yml:

name: sabline
on: [push, pull_request]

permissions:
  contents: read
  security-events: write     # so the findings reach code scanning

jobs:
  sabline:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v5
      - uses: gowrishankar-infra/sabline-lang@269c47aa1ab1b38efdfc13da828340d326fd98f7  # v8.7.0

The Action is pinned to a commit, with its tag in the comment beside it: a tag can be moved to other code after you copied it, and a commit cannot. Pinned that way it installs the Sabline of that commit, as it does at a tag.

That is the whole workflow. With no with: block the Action installs Sabline and the prover, checks every .vel file in the repository, fails the job if one does not compile or carries a promise the prover refutes, and uploads its findings as SARIF 2.1.0 with github/codeql-action/upload-sarif, pinned to a commit. A private repository needs code scanning enabled; set sarif: "false" if it has neither that nor security-events: write. On a pull request from a fork the job's token cannot upload, so that step is skipped - the file is still written, and its path is the sarif-file output. The findings print to the job log either way.

What appears in the Security tab

One alert per finding, on the line that caused it, with a link to its row on the errors page. These are the rule IDs, and a real message from each:

Every code in the compiler's error table is a rule of its own, so a parse error (E1xx), an unknown function (E200) or a type error (E5xx) arrives the same way; E3xx are the effect codes and E7xx the prover's. Under check --strict an unproven promise is an error rather than a warning, and a loop not shown to end is E612. The uses-io, uses-fs and loop-not-shown-to-end notes come from sabline audit --sarif, which the Action does not run; pr-comment below is where the Action reports those. The dependency-* rows come from deps-diff, below, and only when that input is on; each lands on the line of the lockfile that pins the upgraded version.

Sabline's suggested fixes are sentences, while a SARIF fix must hold the exact bytes to change, so they travel in each result's properties.fixes rather than as SARIF fixes with an edit made up to fill the slot.

The budget a repository declares

sabline capabilities init records the capability surface a repository's .vel files need - effects, paths, hosts, Python modules, how many file and network operations a run can perform, and each function's effects - in sabline.capabilities; commit it. From then on the Action runs sabline capabilities check on every push and fails any change that needs more, naming what widened, the file, function and line that introduced it, and the edit to the baseline that would accept it. Those are the capability-* rows above, and they go to code scanning beside the check's.

The comparison is always with that file, never with the previous commit: capability added across many small commits, none alarming by itself, fails at every one of them until someone widens the file, where the change shows in review. A pull request that deletes sabline.capabilities fails too, since that would turn the ratchet off; capabilities: "off" in the workflow is the way to turn it off, where the change is visible. Without the file the ratchet is simply off. EMBEDDING.md has the rules; check_ratchet.py holds them, including a six-commit history that fails only at the commit that reaches the network.

What an upgrade gained

A dependency can change what it can do between two versions while its name, its publisher and its list of dependencies stay the same. The npm package postmark-mcp is a documented case: Koi Security reported in September 2025 that versions 1.0.0 to 1.0.15 worked as an email tool, and that 1.0.16 added a blind copy of every outgoing message to an outside address. A signature from the same publisher verifies both versions; an SBOM lists the same dependencies for both.

sabline deps-diff compares two versions of one dependency:

sabline deps-diff dir:vendor/mailer 1.4.0 1.5.0          # a directory per version
sabline deps-diff git:https://github.com/o/mailer v1.4.0 v1.5.0
sabline deps-diff npm:some-package 1.0.15 1.0.16
sabline deps-diff pypi:some-package 2.31.0 2.32.0 --json
sabline deps-diff --against origin/main                  # every upgrade in the changed lockfiles

For a Sabline library it computes each version's capability surface from its .vel files, as capabilities init would, holds the newer one to the older one as capabilities check holds a tree to its baseline, and reports what the newer one gained - effects, hosts, paths, Python modules, operation counts, and functions that declare an effect they did not - with the file, line and call of each:

GAINED  net:collector.example.net - not in 1.4.0's surface
    in mailer.vel
      mailer.vel:3  send calls post("https://collector.example.net/copy")
GAINED  net operations in mailer.vel: at most 2 in a run; 1.4.0 had at most 1

A caller that already declared net for its own request compiles against both versions, so the compiler has nothing to refuse; the difference is in what the dependency declares, and that is what this reads. The benchmark's category 12 is three programs of that shape and

For any other package it reads what the registry and the package's archive declare, and nothing more: the install-time scripts npm or pip runs (preinstall, install, postinstall, npm's node-gyp rebuild, setup.py, the build backend, a .pth file that imports) and whether each was added or changed - including a changed file behind an unchanged command, and, when a registry's manifest and the tarball's package.json disagree, the scripts of both, since which one npm runs has changed between npm versions - and the declared dependencies. It does not derive what Python or JavaScript code can do, and does not guess: it reports the capability surface as unknown, and exits 3 rather than 0. That answer is often all there is. By Koi Security's account 1.0.16 of postmark-mcp changed nothing but the code that added the copy, so deps-diff would have found no install script and no dependency to report, and would have said the surface is unknown. (npm has since unpublished every version of that package; today deps-diff reports that neither version can be read.)

Exit codes: 0 when both surfaces were derived and nothing was gained; 1 when something was gained; 3 when nothing visible was gained and the surface was not derived; 2 when a version could not be read. --json is sabline.deps-diff/1; --sarif writes the dependency-* results above. A package argument names where to read it - pypi:, npm:, git: or dir: - and a bare name is refused, so an npm package is never compared with a PyPI package of the same name. SABLINE_NPM_REGISTRY and SABLINE_PYPI_URL point it at a mirror.

With deps-diff: "true", on a pull request the Action runs sabline deps-diff --against the base: it reads the lockfiles the pull request changed - package-lock.json, npm-shrinkwrap.json, requirements*.txt pins, Pipfile.lock, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pdm.lock and sabline.lock, whose vendored libraries it compares file against file - compares every upgraded dependency, up to 30, and posts one comment saying what each gained, editing that comment on later runs rather than adding another. A lockfile it does not read (yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, and others) is named in the comment as changed and not read. An entry resolved from git, a path, or a registry or index other than the one it reads is left out and said, because the public package of the same name would be a different package; so is every pin of a requirements*.txt that sets another index. The findings go to code scanning when sarif is on. It needs pull-requests: write, and it never fails the job.

The permissions a pull request gives its workflows

With permissions-ratchet: "true" (8.3), on a pull_request event the Action runs sabline permissions-ratchet --against the pull request's base commit. It compares the permissions: blocks of every workflow file in .github/workflows at the head with the base, job by job, and fails the job on any widening, with an error on the file and line. A widening is a scope whose level rises (none < read < write); a job left with no block, its own or the workflow's, so that it takes the repository's default token permissions; or a new job or workflow file that gives any permission. A narrowing is reported and does not fail. A job renamed is a job removed plus a new job, and the new job is compared with no permissions. The input is off by default. It is the one input that helps a repository with no .vel file, and it runs whether or not there is one. A workflow it cannot read with confidence - an anchor, a tab, a key written twice, a second document - fails the step rather than being taken as having no permissions; so does a base commit it cannot fetch. It compares files, not what GitHub runs, so it does not see the permissions of a reusable workflow a job calls, which that workflow's own block governs; the repository's default token setting; or the base branch's copy of a pull_request_target workflow, which is what runs. --json writes sabline.permissions-ratchet/1, which is provisional.

Everything else the Action takes

  - uses: gowrishankar-infra/sabline-lang@269c47aa1ab1b38efdfc13da828340d326fd98f7  # v8.7.0
    with:
      files: "src/*.vel"     # default: every .vel file in the repository
      version: "8.7.0"       # default: the Action's own version (8.7.0)
      proofs: "true"         # the default; installs z3-solver
      format: "true"         # also fail if the code is not canonically formatted
      min-proven: "80"       # fail below this percent of promises proven
      pr-comment: "true"     # audit every changed .vel on the pull request
      sarif: "true"          # the default; findings to code scanning
      capabilities: "check"  # the default once sabline.capabilities exists
      deps-diff: "true"      # comment on what each upgraded dependency gained

With pr-comment: "true" on a pull_request event the Action posts one comment holding the sabline audit of every .vel file the pull request changes - effects and Python modules reached, proven share, the safe command, and warnings such as a loop not shown to end - and edits that same comment on later runs instead of adding another. The comment also carries the ratchet's result and a sabline review of the branch against its base: surface, proven share, new fallible functions, new hosts and paths, and a one-word risk computed from those facts alone. It uses the REST API with the job's own GITHUB_TOKEN, so the job needs permissions: pull-requests: write. The audit is posted whether or not the checks passed; a file that does not compile is reported as such.

The same SARIF without the Action, for SonarQube (sonar.sarifReportPaths), Azure DevOps or anything else that reads it:

sabline check src/*.vel --sarif > sabline.sarif   # exit 1 as the plain check
sabline proofs src --sarif > proofs.sarif         # promises left to runtime
sabline audit src --sarif > audit.sarif           # what each function may touch
sabline capabilities check --sarif > caps.sarif   # what widened past the baseline

One run, driver Sabline with its version, and a rule for every code in the error table plus the findings that are not errors. Each result has the file, the line and Sabline's message.

Or without installing anything:

docker run --rm -v "$PWD:/work" sabline check /work/main.vel

What a reviewer should read before allowing agent-written Sabline to run: THREAT_MODEL.md, COMPLIANCE.md and the verification steps in SECURITY.md. incidents/ is the same question asked from the other end: publicly reported attacks in this lane since 2023, each with the shape written as a Sabline program and a verdict on whether it refuses — including the ones where the honest verdict is that it does not. It is a catalogue of shapes, not a claim that Sabline would have prevented the real events.

Project

Roadmap · Support and expectations · How the compiler works · Maintainers · Security policy · Stability · Changelog

Maintained by one person, in the open, with the limits stated plainly in SUPPORT.md.

Cite this repository

The author is Palakurthi Gowri Shankar (family name Palakurthi). CITATION.cff holds the citation, and GitHub offers it as "Cite this repository" beside the file list. A preprint describing Sabline is forthcoming; until it is published, cite the repository. The capability format is cited separately, from sabline-spec's own CITATION.cff. PROVENANCE.md records the dates and the archive identifiers.

Contributing

The implementation is the package sabline/, one readable module per stage, in pipeline order — lexer to command line; sabline.py starts it. Start with ARCHITECTURE.md for how it fits together, and MAINTAINERS.md for what review looks like.

Looking for somewhere to start? See the good first issues — small, self-contained tasks, each with the file to open and what "done" means.

The 97 example programs run_tests.py runs, in examples/, each carry an expected verdict, and 36 of them are designed to be rejected — each rejection demonstrates a guarantee. Before any change ships:

python run_tests.py                 # every example, expected verdicts
sabline test examples/std_test.vel  # the library's own tests
python fuzz_native.py 60            # both engines must agree
sabline fmt examples/*.vel stdlib/*.vel --check

License

MIT © Palakurthi Gowri Shankar