SkillPass: Portable Service Rights on CKB — Looking for Community Feedback

Applications & Ecosystem
, , ,
1

Hi CKB community,

I’m building SkillPass, an open-source experiment for portable service rights on CKB, and I’d like feedback before preparing a formal Community Fund DAO proposal.

What is SkillPass?

A provider issues a service entitlement as a CKB Capability Cell.

The current owner of the live Cell is the user authorized to access the service.

Alice owns the Cell → Alice has access.

If Alice transfers it to Bob:

Alice loses access → Bob gains access.

Providers verify the current live Cell on CKB instead of relying on a shared ownership database.

SkillPass separates:

  • CKB Capability Cell — ownership of the service right
  • Fiber/x402 — optional per-use payment

Current status

A working Testnet prototype already includes:

  • CCC/JoyID wallet support
  • Capability Cell issuance and transfer
  • live ownership verification
  • old-owner access invalidation
  • signed request intents and replay protection
  • provider verification
  • multi-provider architecture
  • Fiber/x402 integration path

GitHub: GitHub - tydeptrai21042004/ckb-skill · GitHub
Demo: https://ckb-skill.vercel.app/

Feedback I’m looking for

  1. Is this model useful for CKB service providers?
  2. Does authorization based on the current live Cell owner make sense?
  3. Is multi-provider recognition of the same entitlement valuable?
  4. What security or trust-model issues should I address before a formal proposal?
  5. What would you want to see demonstrated next?

My next focus is security hardening, independent-provider validation, and public Testnet testing.

Any technical or product feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

8 Likes
CKB Ecosystem Biweekly Update
2

Hi Dangbaty，欢迎加入社区，感谢分享你的项目

虽然这个分享是为后续申请DAO收集反馈，不过当前阶段可能更适合它的地方是 Applications & Ecosystem ，在那个分区可能更适合作为项目本身的讨论

因此，已经将帖子分区移动

2 Likes
3

good stuff

1 Like
4

Thanks for the guidance and for moving the post to the more appropriate category. That makes sense at this stage.

I’ll use this thread to collect technical and product feedback while I continue improving the prototype and testing the model on CKB Testnet. Once the project and scope are mature enough, I’ll prepare a separate formal Community Fund DAO proposal.

Thanks again!

3 Likes
6

Thanks, really appreciate it!

1 Like
7

Yes, i think the authorization based on cell ownership is great

1 Like
8

Thank you , really appreciate it !

9

Let me see if I understand this correctly:
There is a live cell held by Alice (meaning she can trade it). Alice wants to transfer this cell to Bob (so that Bob can trade it, while Alice no longer can), but she does not want to transfer this live cell via a direct trade?
However, if the currently common Lock Script is to be transferred to Bob, this cell must execute a transaction.

10

Yes, exactly — the transfer still happens through a normal CKB transaction.

SkillPass is not trying to avoid the Cell transfer. The idea is that the service right is represented by that live Cell, so when Alice transfers it to Bob, the old Cell is consumed and Bob receives the new live Cell.

After that, providers check the current live Cell state:

  • Alice → no longer authorized

  • Bob → authorized

So the ownership change and the service authorization follow the same on-chain Cell transition.

1 Like