ChainBench · Flotapponnier · Apr 30, 2026 · Apr 30, 2026
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# Code of Conduct
+
+OpenChainBench publishes performance numbers about real services run by real people. The conversations around those numbers can get heated — especially when a provider's reputation is tied to the data. This document is short and direct so the bar is clear.
+
+## Expected behavior
+
+- **Critique numbers, not people.** It's fair to question a methodology, a sample window, a regional bias. It's not fair to suggest someone is incompetent or dishonest.
+- **Cite, don't assert.** If you think a published figure is wrong, file a [provider correction](https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/issues/new?template=provider-correction.yml) with a reproducer. "This number is bullshit" without a reproducer is a non-issue.
+- **Disclose conflicts.** If you work for a provider that's measured here, say so when you participate in discussions about that provider. It doesn't disqualify your input — it just keeps the conversation honest.
+- **Respect contributors' time.** Maintainers are not obligated to debate. If a thread is going in circles, a maintainer may close it with a dated decision and that decision stands until new evidence is filed.
+
+## Unacceptable behavior
+
+- Harassment, personal attacks, or sustained disruption of discussion.
+- Posting private communications without consent.
+- Deliberately misleading benchmarks or harness submissions designed to flatter a provider you're affiliated with.
+- Targeting individual contributors based on their employer, nationality, or any protected characteristic.
+
+## Enforcement
+
+A maintainer may, at their discretion:
+
+- Edit, lock, or delete issues, PRs, comments, and discussions that violate this code.
+- Block users from the repository.
+- Revert merged PRs that contain manipulated data or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
+
+Decisions are recorded in the affected thread.
+
+## Reporting
+
+For private reports — including suspected manipulation, harassment, or undisclosed conflicts of interest — email **conduct@openchainbench.xyz** or open a [private security advisory](https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/security/advisories/new) (the same channel works for non-security disclosures).
+
+We treat reporters' identities as confidential by default.
+
+## Scope
+
+This Code of Conduct applies to all OpenChainBench spaces — issues, PRs, discussions, the Discord/Telegram if those exist, and any in-person event held under the project's name.
+
+---
+
+Loosely adapted from the [Contributor Covenant 2.1](https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/1/code_of_conduct/), trimmed for a small, technical project.
@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+# Discussions & Project board — manual setup
+
+This file documents the GitHub UI configuration that lives outside the repo (Discussions categories, the Project board). It exists so a maintainer can recreate the setup if it gets lost or migrated.
+
+## Discussions
+
+**Setup path:** Repo → Discussions tab → ⚙️ "Manage categories"
+
+| Category | Type | Description |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| 📣 Announcements | Announcement (maintainers only) | New benchmarks shipped, methodology changes, infrastructure migrations. |
+| 💡 Ideas | Open-ended discussion | Brainstorm new benchmarks, providers, or methodology improvements before writing them up. |
+| 🙋 Q&A | Question / Answer | Ask how a spec / harness / metric works. Pick a best answer when one is given. |
+| 📊 Show & tell | Open-ended discussion | Share a fork, a derived dashboard, a benchmark you ran locally. |
+
+Default categories like "General" and "Polls" should be deleted to keep the surface focused.
+
+## Roadmap Project
+
+**Setup path:** Org → Projects tab → New project → "From scratch" → Board template
+
+- **Name**: `OpenChainBench Roadmap`
+- **Visibility**: Public
+- **Linked repository**: `OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench`
+
+### Columns
+
+```
+Requested → Approved → In progress → Live → Archived
+```
+
+| Column | Meaning |
+| --- | --- |
+| Requested | A bench has been proposed (issue with `bench-request` label or a Discussion thread). Methodology not yet validated by maintainers. |
+| Approved | Methodology agreed on. Spec / harness work can start. |
+| In progress | A PR is open implementing the benchmark. |
+| Live | Merged + harness wired into Railway + emitting data. |
+| Archived | Deprecated, retired, or rejected with a dated note. |
+
+### Workflows
+
+In Project Settings → Workflows, enable:
+
+- **Auto-add to project** — for issues in `OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench` matching the filter `is:issue label:bench-request`. They land in `Requested` automatically.
+- **Item closed → Archived** — when an issue is closed without a `live` label, move it to `Archived`.
+- **PR merged → Live** (manual; GitHub doesn't have a native trigger, so a maintainer moves the card after merge).
+
+### Custom fields (optional)
+
+- `Category` (single-select): RPC / Aggregator / Bridge / Price feed / Wallet / Other.
+- `Priority` (single-select): P0 / P1 / P2.
+- `Owner` (text or person reference).
+
+## Labels
+
+These labels back the issue templates and the project workflow. Create them under Repo → Issues → Labels:
+
+| Label | Color | Description |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| `bench-request` | `#0e8a16` (green) | Used by `new-benchmark.yml` template; auto-adds to the Project board. |
+| `data-quality` | `#fbca04` (yellow) | Used by `data-quality.yml`; site / data anomaly. |
+| `correction` | `#d93f0b` (orange) | Provider-submitted correction. |
+| `provider` | `#5319e7` (purple) | Combined with `correction` to mark provider-affiliated issues. |
+| `live` | `#0366d6` (blue) | Bench is published and emitting data; survives an issue's lifetime. |
+| `harness-bug` | `#b60205` (red) | A harness has stopped emitting or is reporting wrong values. |
+| `methodology` | `#5319e7` (purple) | Discussion about how a benchmark is computed. |
+| `good first issue` | `#7057ff` (purple) | Curated easy-entry tasks for new contributors. |
+| `help wanted` | `#008672` (teal) | Maintainers explicitly want outside contribution. |
+
+## Re-running this setup
+
+If the Project or Discussions are wiped:
+
+1. Re-create the Discussions categories per the table above.
+2. Re-create the Project with the columns + workflows.
+3. Add the labels listed in the Labels section.
+4. Push a tiny change to this file documenting the date of the rebuild so the next maintainer knows when the configuration was last verified.
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+blank_issues_enabled: false
+contact_links:
+ - name: 💡 Idea or rough proposal
+ url: https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/discussions/new?category=ideas
+ about: Have an idea but not ready for a formal benchmark proposal? Start a discussion in Ideas.
+ - name: 🙋 Question (How do I…?)
+ url: https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/discussions/new?category=q-a
+ about: Ask a question about a spec, harness, methodology, or how the site works.
+ - name: 📊 Show & tell
+ url: https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/discussions/new?category=show-and-tell
+ about: Show a fork, a dashboard, or a benchmark you ran locally.
+ - name: 🔐 Security disclosure
+ url: https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/security/advisories/new
+ about: Privately report a vulnerability. Do not file a public issue for security problems.
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+name: 🐞 Data quality issue
+description: Report a number on the site that looks wrong, broken, or stale. For provider-specific corrections (you measured a different number for your own service), use the "Provider correction" template instead.
+title: "Data: <bench number> · <short description>"
+labels: ["data-quality"]
+body:
+ - type: markdown
+ attributes:
+ value: |
+ Thanks for flagging this. Be specific so we can investigate quickly.
+ - type: dropdown
+ id: bench
+ attributes:
+ label: Which benchmark
+ options:
+ - "№ 001 · aggregator-head-lag"
+ - "№ 002 · bridge-quote-latency"
+ - "№ 003 · bridge-fee"
+ - "Other (specify in description)"
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: dropdown
+ id: kind
+ attributes:
+ label: What kind of issue
+ options:
+ - "Number looks wrong (out of plausible range)"
+ - "Provider missing from the page"
+ - "Sparkline / chart not updating"
+ - "Last-run timestamp is stale"
+ - "Region label looks incorrect"
+ - "Page rendering / formatting bug"
+ - "Other"
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: observed
+ attributes:
+ label: What you see
+ description: Paste the number, screenshot, or describe the symptom. Include the URL of the report.
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: expected
+ attributes:
+ label: What you expected
+ description: Why does this look wrong to you? A reference number, a sanity check, an external dashboard.
+ validations:
+ required: false
+ - type: input
+ id: when
+ attributes:
+ label: Approximate time observed (UTC)
+ placeholder: e.g. "2026-04-30 14:20 UTC"
+ validations:
+ required: false
+ - type: textarea
+ id: anything
+ attributes:
+ label: Anything else
+ description: Context that might help narrow it down — region you're checking from, browser, recent harness changes, related issues.
+ validations:
+ required: false
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+name: 📊 Propose a benchmark
+description: Suggest a new benchmark for OpenChainBench. Sketch the metric, the providers, the methodology — the goal is to align before code is written.
+title: "Bench: <short description>"
+labels: ["bench-request"]
+body:
+ - type: markdown
+ attributes:
+ value: |
+ Thanks for proposing a benchmark.
+
+ OpenChainBench prefers to align on **what** is measured and **how** before any code is written. Fill out the sections below — fields marked required are the bare minimum needed for the maintainers to give meaningful feedback. If you're not sure on some of them, write what you have and leave a note.
+
+ Have a rough idea but not ready to fill all this? Open a thread in [Discussions → Ideas](https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/discussions/categories/ideas) instead.
+ - type: input
+ id: metric
+ attributes:
+ label: What should be measured (one sentence)
+ description: The metric and the providers. Be specific.
+ placeholder: e.g. "Time-to-finality of an Ethereum block, measured by RPC providers across 3 regions."
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: motivation
+ attributes:
+ label: Why it matters
+ description: Who cares about this number, and what decision does it inform?
+ placeholder: e.g. "Wallet UX teams choose RPCs based on confirmation speed; today no one publishes a like-for-like number."
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: providers
+ attributes:
+ label: Providers in scope
+ description: One per line. Mark "(?)" next to any you want feedback on including.
+ placeholder: |
+ Alchemy
+ QuickNode
+ Infura
+ Ankr
+ Public RPCs (?)
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: textarea
+ id: methodology
+ attributes:
+ label: Proposed methodology
+ description: How will the harness run? Cadence, timeout, success criteria, regions.
+ value: |
+ - Workload / inputs:
+ - Cadence:
+ - Timeout:
+ - Regions:
+ - What counts as success:
+ - What's excluded from latency aggregates:
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: dropdown
+ id: hosting
+ attributes:
+ label: Where will the harness run?
+ description: Light = single HTTP loop, no wallets, no signing. Heavy = wallets, on-chain transactions, capital-at-risk.
+ options:
+ - "Light — happy to have OpenChainBench Railway host it"
+ - "Heavy — I'll host on my own infra and push to a public Prom endpoint"
+ - "Not sure yet"
+ validations:
+ required: true
+ - type: input
+ id: language
+ attributes:
+ label: Harness language / runtime (planned)
+ placeholder: e.g. Go 1.24, Bun, Python 3.13, Rust
+ validations:
+ required: false
+ - type: textarea
+ id: existing
+ attributes:
+ label: Existing data sources
+ description: Are you already running a similar harness? Got Prometheus metrics ready? Link/paste anything relevant.
+ placeholder: |
+ - Existing harness repo (private or public):
+ - Existing Prometheus instance:
+ - Existing metric names:
+ validations:
+ required: false
+ - type: textarea
+ id: anything
+ attributes:
+ label: Anything else
+ description: Caveats, prior art, related benchmarks, conflicts of interest.
+ validations:
+ required: false
+ - type: checkboxes
+ id: terms
+ attributes:
+ label: Confirm
+ options:
+ - label: I understand that the harness code, methodology, and any corrections will be published under the project's MIT/CC-BY-4.0 license.
+ required: true
+ - label: I have searched [existing benchmarks](https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/main/benchmarks) and [open issues](https://github.com/OpenChainBench/OpenChainBench/issues?q=is%3Aissue+label%3Abench-request) for duplicates.
+ required: true