Security Trait Standards for Clarity: Access Control, Pausable Contracts & More

SIP Ideas + Discussion
21

I did a quick ChatGPT on your latest proposal + @friedger Identicon for Contracts proposal.

They appear to be complimentary of each other.

“So they complement each other:

  • Security registry = machine-verifiable security assurance (credentials/trust).

  • Identicon = human-recognizable visual reference (UX trust).”

“:light_bulb: Which Is Better — Combined or Separate?

Better together.

Separately:*

  • Identicon → visual only (no proof of security)

  • Security registry → machine trust but no UX cue

Together:

  • Visual cues + cryptographically verifiable security

  • Stronger protection against both accidental clicks and malicious copycats

  • Better onboarding and safer UX for end users

This pairing is similar to how modern browsers show:

  • a favicon + HTTPS lock icon → quick visual trust + cryptographic identity”

How They Could Be Integrated:

  1. Use the same hash source

  2. Wallet UI / Explorer Flow

  3. Security + UX SIP

You could eventually fold both into a single SIP or companion SIPs

What do you think @Terese and @friedger ?

1 Like
22

Yes, the pairing makes perfect sense, security verification and visual identification would provide secured security and better UX

right now, my current focus is delivering phase 1 to ensure the ownable pattern working code, tests and documentation is delivered. My aim is to prove this foundation works well and it’s adopted before expanding the scope.

I see the synergy here, while the security registry/security template proves the contract is secured, the identicon will recognize contracts visually. This could be explored as a future phase after the core security templates are established and proven valuable to the community.
So, what I think is, these proposals complement each other but should remain separate for now since each one solves a distinct problem. They can work together without being merged into one proposal. Looking forward to discussing this at the Feb 3rd WG.

1 Like
23

Thanks everyone for the helpful feedback at yesterday’s Clarity WG.

Next iteration: expanding to DAO governance patterns based on the discussion.

Current work: GitHub - Terese678/clarity-security-templates: Battle-tested ownership pattern for Clarity smart contracts
Reference: https://github.com/Marvin-Jansselex/executor-dao

Thanks @Setzeus, @Gary, @Friedger, @Brice, @HeroGamer

Updates coming soon.

24

DAO Governance Security Templates

Copy-paste DAO governance in minutes instead of building for weeks.

16 smart contracts. Multi-sig voting. Treasury management. Production-ready.

Based on ExecutorDAO patterns. Built for Stacks developers.

Thanks @Setzeus @Gary @friedger @HeroGamer @Brice for the Feb 3 feedback that made this possible

1 Like
25

I refined the security template significantly; I moved away from the DAO governance approach and rebuilt it as a focused multi-sig wallet system. Four contracts: security-rules-trait, rules, wallet, and a verification registry that uses Clarity 4’s contract-hash to verify you’re interacting with the original unmodified contract.
Currently I’m testing it on my own Glamora marketplace contracts.
I am looking for 2-3 Clarity developers willing to try it on a real project and give honest feedback.
GitHub: GitHub - Terese678/clarity-security-templates · GitHub