celmis

This package is the offline verifier for a Celmis evidence pack. It is not the Celmis platform.

The platform is six services under docker compose, and no sensible person would install that with pip. This package is one command:

pip install celmis
celmis verify evidence-pack.zip

It takes an evidence-pack archive, recomputes the sha256 of every file listed in the manifest inside it, and tells you whether the pack is the one that was generated. It has no dependencies, makes no network calls, and never contacts a Celmis installation.

That isolation is the whole design. The person who has to check a pack is usually not the operator who produced it — an auditor, a customer's security reviewer, somebody holding a zip that arrived by email. Asking them to install the producer's tooling in order to check the producer's output defeats the purpose of checking. So the checker is a separate, dependency-free program that reads a file.

Installing the platform is a git clone and a docker compose up, described at the bottom of this page.

What the verifier checks

A Celmis evidence pack is a zip containing:

sbom/<repo>.cdx.json   one CycloneDX 1.5 inventory per repository
findings.json          every vulnerability, with severity and fixed version
timeline.jsonl         when each audit run happened and what it found
summary.md             the human-readable cover sheet
MANIFEST.json          a sha256 for every file above

celmis verify reports three kinds of problem and distinguishes between them:

• a file listed in the manifest that is absent from the archive,
• a file whose recomputed sha256 does not match the manifest,
• a file present in the archive that the manifest does not vouch for.

The third matters as much as the second. An added file is content nobody signed.

Packs are built deterministically — fixed archive timestamps, sorted entries, sorted-key JSON — so two exports of the same audit run produce identical bytes. That is what makes "this pack was not regenerated with different contents" a statement somebody can test rather than a statement somebody makes.

The manifest declares its own format version. A pack produced by a newer Celmis than this verifier is reported as exactly that, and not as a failed check — "I do not understand this" and "this has been altered" are opposite answers, and the second is an accusation.

Usage

celmis verify pack.zip            # exit 0 if intact, 1 if not, 2 on a usage error
celmis verify --json pack.zip     # machine-readable, for a CI step
celmis show pack.zip              # print the manifest
celmis show --summary pack.zip    # print summary.md from inside the pack
celmis --version

A pack is exported from a running installation at GET /api/deps/{run_id}/evidence.

A pack is a record of what an audit run found and when. It is not a compliance certificate, and this tool makes no claim about whether any particular obligation is satisfied. That is a lawyer's judgement, and a tool that implied otherwise would be selling exactly the false confidence the subsystem exists to avoid.

What Celmis is

Celmis covers most of a development cycle plus the observability that feeds it, on one machine you own. Four capabilities, in the order they matter.

1. See it, fix it, without leaving the platform

An alert — Grafana, or anything that can POST JSON — reaches a per-workspace ingest URL. The alert already knows which repository owns it, and it goes straight out to whatever channel the workspace has bound: Slack, Discord, Google Chat or a plain webhook. Fix from here opens an embedded Claude Code session that already holds the repository, the package and both versions; the session edits a checkout and the runner pushes a branch and opens the pull request.

Measured once at 220 seconds, on a real lodash 4.17.11 advisory, from starting the session to an open pull request. No laptop, no local checkout, no terminal — the work happens inside the operator's own installation.

2. Vulnerabilities, SBOM and the evidence pack

Deterministic checks that read files. No model decides that something is wrong, so the false-positive rate is zero by construction. OSV-Scanner and each ecosystem's own auditor are treated as inputs, not as features.

The outputs are a CycloneDX SBOM per repository and the evidence pack this package verifies — designed around the question an auditor asks about a moment in the past: on the day this was exploited, what did you know, when did you learn it, and what did you do. A dashboard shows the present. A record can answer that.

3. Code intelligence

One symbol graph across repositories, built deterministically with tree-sitter. No model participates in constructing it. Questions are answered across repository boundaries with file:line citations. 23 languages plus infrastructure formats. An MCP server exposes 18 tools over the same index under the same access rules. A sentence box acts on a set of repositories at once, with a second press required and the scope re-checked at confirmation.

4. Pull-request review

A good addition with a decent score, and not the centre of the product.

On the Martian Code Review Bench offline set, the run placed 17th of 50 under all three judges. Precision was 48.0% under the claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929 judge — the middle of the three rather than the most favourable, and the one whose false positives were then audited; the other two scored the same run at 52.4% and 46.0%. The run cost $5.88 in total, $0.118 per pull request.

All 79 findings that judge scored as false positives were opened in the source at the reviewed commit and given a verdict, each published with its code and a pinned permalink: 33 were real defects the gold set does not contain, 38 were genuinely wrong, 8 were unverifiable. The article reporting that also records that the cross-repository capability was structurally unavailable on that set — 0 of the 50 pull requests carried a drift finding, 0 had a cross-repository caller, and graph context was rejected as base_too_old on 18 of them. The corrected precision computed in that article cannot be compared with any other row on the board, because only these false positives were audited and nobody else's; 48.0% is the figure that is comparable, and it is the one that stays.

The benchmark measures item 4 only. It is not a measurement of items 1 to 3.

Installing the platform

git clone https://github.com/Celmis-labs/Celmis
cd Celmis
cp .env.example .env
docker compose up -d

197 seconds from git clone to six healthy services, measured on a clean server. Postgres and Qdrant are bundled. About 4 GB of free RAM is the recommendation; a real indexing run measured 1.1 GB peak across the containers and 565 MB at rest.

The model provider is the operator's choice: Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI, OpenRouter, Groq, Mistral, or a local server — Ollama, vLLM, llama.cpp — for generation and embeddings, which is what makes an air-gapped installation possible.

Controls

• Per-repository access control, where deny-globs win over allow.
• GDPR export and erasure.
• A monthly spend cap that actually refuses calls rather than warning about them.
• An append-only JSONL audit trail, with CSV export.

Licence

AGPL-3.0-or-later, with one exception drawn by path. LICENSE is the unmodified AGPL text; the exception and the reasoning behind it are in LICENSING.md, and the terms for the excepted files are in LICENSE_EE. Anything whose path contains ee/, and any file whose name contains .ee., is governed by LICENSE_EE rather than the AGPL. That directory holds no product code today. The boundary was drawn before it was needed, because adding it after the first outside contribution means re-asking every contributor who already sent work under an unqualified AGPL.

The exception lives in LICENSING.md rather than at the top of LICENSE because a licence file with a preamble in front of it stops being recognised as that licence — GitHub compares the file against a reference text and answers NOASSERTION, which reads to a package index as no licence at all.

Everything shipped at the first public release is AGPL, including the parts that look commercial — the audit console, usage and spend, compliance checks, installation metrics. Security controls are never enterprise-only.

Who maintains this

One person. A solo maintainer, still a student, graduating in 2027.

Links

• Site: https://celmis-labs.github.io
• Source: https://github.com/Celmis-labs/Celmis
• MCP server: https://celmis-labs.github.io/mcp/
• The false-positive audit: https://celmis-labs.github.io/writing/auditing-79-false-positives/