Status: Active, v1.0, 2026-04-12
License: PMPL-1.0-or-later (MPL-2.0 automatic legal fallback)
Companion to: Component Readiness Grades (CRG) v2.2
Part of: Rhodium Standard Repositories (RSR)
A strict superset of CRG specifically for the core toolchain components of a programming-language project: grammar, lexer, parser, AST, semantic analyser, type checker, IR, codegen, linker, runtime, stdlib, REPL, formatter, LSP, diagnostics, debugger, package manager, proof dispatcher, ABI/FFI surface, backend registry.
TRG uses the same letter grades as CRG (X | F | E | D | C | B | A) but
the evidence required at each grade is significantly higher, because
toolchain components are critical infrastructure — every program
ever compiled by the toolchain inherits its bugs.
Three reasons:
-
CRG is a general-purpose component scheme. Toolchains need a tighter rubric.
-
The 007 language project already runs MK2-style four-tier MoSCoW audits (
audits/audit-<component>.md). TRG promotes that pattern to an estate-wide standard, with grade-thresholds attached to each tier. -
Hyperpolymath’s standing priority order (dependability > security > interop > usability > performance > versatility > functional-extension) needs an enforcement vehicle for the parts of the estate that sit upstream of everything else.
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
|
The normative spec. Read this first. |
|
This file. |
|
The 24 component audit documents copied verbatim from the 007 language project, plus the seed lexer-MK2 audit that originated the four-tier format. These are the canonical exemplars of the per-component audit format. |
|
The five canonical templates
referenced from the spec, all
v1.0 as of 2026-04-12:
|
|
TRG applied to itself. Honest current grade: X (untested). The standard has been written but not yet applied to any toolchain component. Path to D and beyond is laid out. |
|
Machine-readable counterpart of
the spec, matching the CRG |
| X |
absent / not working / any Must row failed |
| F |
tested + harmful / wasteful (delegate or remove) |
| E |
pre-alpha. All Must passed. Banned constructs ZERO. panic-attack zero Critical/High. Six A2ML files + 0-AI-MANIFEST present. Immaculate Guide passing. |
| D |
pre-alpha+. All Must + Should + the Canonical Proof Suite (this is the foundational gate). RSR-FULL. panic-attack zero across all severities. Fuzzing harness exists. |
| C |
alpha. All Must + Should + Could. Full Testing-Taxonomy 16×14 coverage in Six Sigma range. Continuous fuzzing 14d. 5 fully-proven programs. 3-nines on top-4 priority axes. |
| B |
beta. All four tiers passed. Multi-prover cross-validation (≥2 of {Idris2, Lean 4, Rocq, Agda}). Single external audit. Continuous fuzzing 30d. 100 distinct external users. 5-nines top-4, 4-nines rest. |
| A |
stable / release. Six Sigma vs trailing-12-month IPO cohort (bottom decile). 5,000,000 external processor-hours. 21 fully-proven programs cross-validated by ≥3 independent provers. Type-theory upstream contribution in last 12 months. 1000 distinct external users. Unanimous 6+6 (humans + LLMs) signoff. Plus full hyperpolymath standards conformance (RSR, CI/CD 90d green, launch-scaffolder, PanLL, Hypatia zero, panic-attack zero, VeriSimDB, Stapeln, Groove, SLSA L3, reproducible builds, Coordination.k9, UX Manifesto). |
Loss of any A-grade gate (canonical proof regresses, six-sigma slips, processor-hours window drops, signoff rescinded, standards drift) immediately demotes the component. There is no grace period. See §5.8.
See §11 of the spec. Honest answer: TRG-A is, to the author’s knowledge, not matched by any standard currently in use anywhere. The author expects approximately zero hyperpolymath toolchain components to hit A in the first year, and is comfortable with the possibility that no toolchain component anywhere reaches A for many years. That is the correct order of magnitude. If A becomes easy to hit, the bar is wrong and the standard MUST be raised.
TRG is the baseline. Each hyperpolymath language is expected to publish
a spec/TRG-PROFILE.adoc in its own repo that tightens TRG with
language-specific obligations (e.g. Eclexia tropical-semiring soundness,
AffineScript region/affinity discipline, Idris2 totality discipline). A
profile may only tighten, never loosen. See §1.1.
A project that ships a language toolchain MUST publish both: a CRG grade for the project as a whole, and a TRG grade for the toolchain. Where the two rubrics overlap, the stricter grade governs. TRG is always at least as strict as CRG.