Spark Program |DOB Pattern Studio

English
,
1

Spark Program | DOB Pattern Studio

Project Name

DOB Pattern Studio — A visual Pattern builder + verification harness for Spore/DOB creators

Team / Individual Profile

Tefro Labs

Tefro Labs is a development studio applying to the CKB ecosystem for the first time through this Spark application. We want to be upfront about that rather than overstate a track record we don’t yet have — but a few things work in our favor for exactly this kind of grant:

  • Right-sized for Spark, on purpose. We chose a project that plays to a focused team’s strengths: a frontend tool composing existing, already-audited infrastructure (Spore SDK, CCC, the public DOB decoder/render pipeline) rather than new on-chain contracts. Executing this well requires careful UI/UX work and correct integration — not deep prior CKB history — which is exactly where we intend to put our effort.

  • We designed the verification mechanism before being asked twice. The Spark Committee’s 2025 Annual Report flagged reviewer bandwidth as a real constraint and introduced the “How to Verify” requirement partly to address it. Our core deliverable — a replayable verification bundle — is a direct, structural answer to that stated need, not a bolt-on. We read the program’s own retrospective closely and designed around it, which we’d offer as early evidence of how we approach scoping in general.

  • Single point of accountability. As a small team with no internal handoffs, weekly sync updates and “How to Verify” reporting are easy to keep current — the lightweight, transparent cadence the program is built around.

Problem

Creating a Spore DOB today requires the creator to hand-author a binary “Pattern” — the cipher that tells the on-chain Decoder how to turn a DOB’s raw DNA bytes into traits and images. The Spore team’s own documentation acknowledges this is fiddly enough that they intend to eventually ship a “fill-in-the-blank” authoring tool — but no such tool exists yet in the ecosystem. As a result:

  • Most DOB creation today happens through hand-written byte offsets and manual testing against a local decoder server.

  • There is no quick way to confirm a Pattern decodes correctly before minting on-chain (where Spore cells are immutable).

  • This is also exactly the kind of friction that suppresses CCC and DOB adoption among new builders the Eco Fund is trying to attract.

Solution

DOB Pattern Studio is a small, open-source, CCC-powered web tool that lets a creator:

  1. Define traits visually — a form-based UI for naming traits, byte ranges, and value-decoding rules, instead of writing raw Pattern bytes by hand.

  2. Live-preview the render — calls the existing dob-decoder-standalone-server / dob-render pipeline against sample DNA to show the actual rendered SVG output before anything touches the chain.

  3. Export a verification bundle — a JSON file containing the Pattern, 3–5 sample DNA inputs, and their expected decoded/rendered output, so anyone (including a future grant reviewer) can independently re-run the same inputs and confirm the Pattern behaves as claimed.

  4. Publish the Cluster + Pattern on-chain via CCC — using CCC’s wallet-connector component for signing, so creators don’t need to hand-build the transaction.

This is a frontend tool that composes existing, audited infrastructure (Spore SDK, DOB decoder/render, CCC connector). No new on-chain contracts are introduced, which keeps technical risk low and the timeline realistic for a Spark-sized grant — and for the tightened $1,000 budget below, we’ve scoped the build to a single clean core loop rather than a feature-complete suite.

DOB spec scope: this MVP targets DOB/0 (SVG-based) Patterns only — this matches the render pipeline’s SVG output described above and keeps the 5-week scope realistic. DOB/1 (image-URI-based) support is a natural, well-scoped follow-on if the program wants to extend this work after Spark, and the Pattern-builder UI is designed so that adding a second decode/render target later doesn’t require re-architecting the trait-definition form.

This will be a fully functional MVP, not an experimental artifact. A creator can operate the tool end-to-end — define a Pattern, preview the render, export a verification bundle, and publish to Testnet — using the hosted demo alone. The verification bundle is a supplementary reproducibility artifact for reviewers, not a substitute for a working product; nothing in this deliverable depends on the bundle to function.

Relevance to the CKB Ecosystem

  • Directly addresses two of the Eco Fund’s named 2026 priorities: CCC-based dApps and Spore/DOB tooling.

  • Lowers the barrier to entry for new DOB creators — fewer hand-crafted binary Patterns, fewer failed/irreversible mints.

  • Produces a reusable “verification bundle” format that other Spark applicants could adopt to satisfy the new “How to Verify” requirement the committee introduced in the 2025 Annual Report — i.e. this tool helps solve the committee’s own stated review-bandwidth problem, not just a creator-side problem.

  • 100% open source, forkable into the Spark-Program GitHub org per the program’s knowledge-base policy.

Expected Deliverables

  • Open-source code repository (MIT or Apache-2.0 license)

  • Hosted demo (e.g. Vercel) — connect wallet via CCC, build a Pattern, preview render, export verification bundle

  • One documented worked example: a Cluster + Pattern published to Testnet, with its own verification bundle, as a reference for other creators

  • Short README walkthrough for other DOB creators

(Scope note: at this budget, the video walkthrough and the generic reusable schema documentation from a larger version of this proposal are dropped in favor of a tight, working core loop — form-based Pattern builder → live preview → verification bundle export → Testnet publish. These are natural follow-on asks if the program wants to extend support after Spark.)

How to Verify (per the Committee’s new requirement)

Reviewers (or any community member) can verify completion with zero special setup:

  1. Open the hosted demo link.

  2. Load the provided example verification bundle (included in the repo, /examples/sample-bundle.json). The bundle contains: the Pattern definition, 3–5 sample DNA inputs, and the expected decoded trait values + rendered SVG output for each sample.

  3. Click “Replay Verification” — the tool re-decodes the 3–5 sample DNA inputs against the Pattern and diffs the output against the expected render stored in the bundle.

  4. A green checkmark per sample confirms the Pattern behaves identically to what was claimed at submission time.

Separately, the Testnet Cluster transaction hash will be posted, so anyone can independently confirm on explorer.nervos.org that the Cluster + sample Spore exist on-chain and decode correctly through the public dob-decoder-standalone-server.

This gives the committee a one-click, reproducible check rather than a line-by-line code review.

Requested Funding

$1,000 USD, requested as 100% CKB (per the Committee’s 2026 update allowing single-currency payment).

  • Trait/Pattern builder UI — $400. Form-based trait definition, byte-range mapping.

  • Decoder/render integration — $300. Wiring to dob-decoder-standalone-server + live SVG preview.

  • Verification bundle export/replay + Testnet publish via CCC — $300. JSON bundle format, “Replay Verification” feature, CCC-signed Testnet publish flow.

(CKB-equivalent amount will be finalized at the time of formal application, per the program’s pricing-snapshot convention. Disbursement follows the standard 20% / 80% split.)

Estimated Timeline: 5 weeks

  • Week 1: Repo scaffold, CCC connector wired in, basic trait-definition form.

  • Week 2: Decoder/render integration + live preview working end-to-end on Testnet sample data.

  • Week 3: Verification bundle export + “Replay Verification” feature.

  • Week 4: Publish-to-chain flow via CCC; worked Testnet example Cluster.

  • Week 5: Docs, README, buffer for review feedback.

To-Do List

  • [ ] Scaffold repo (CCC + Spore SDK dependencies)

  • [ ] Build trait-definition form UI

  • [ ] Integrate dob-decoder-standalone-server for live decode/render preview

  • [ ] Design and implement verification bundle JSON format

  • [ ] Build “Replay Verification” UI feature

  • [ ] Implement CCC-based Cluster/Pattern publish flow (Testnet)

  • [ ] Publish one worked example Cluster + verification bundle on Testnet

  • [ ] Write documentation

  • [ ] Submit completion report with all links, tx hashes, and verification bundle

4 Likes
CKB Ecosystem Biweekly Update
2

Hi @Frank,

Great to see your interest in the Spark Program!

Below are some personal thoughts for your reference before I submit them to the committee for review. These reflect my individual interpretation and do not represent the committee’s position.

1. Proposal formatting:

I noticed you formatted the proposal according to the template—thank you for your diligence. However, there are still a few flaws that need your attention:

  • The current proposal title still does not comply with requirement #0 of the proposal template. Please add "Spark Program | " at the beginning of the proposal title.
  • The budget and timeline sections contain excessive line breaks in multiple places, which clearly increases reading difficulty.

2. Deliverable Clarity:

The core deliverable — an open-source web tool with visual feature definition, live preview, and validation package export — is clear. However, please clarify:

  • Does the tool support both DOB/0 (SVG-based) and DOB/1 (image-URI-based), or only one of these?
  • How the verification bundle will be constituted so that the committee can judge its reproducibility during the formal review.

3. About How to Verify:

The approach for the verification bundle is fine. But to avoid any ambiguity, I want to confirm with you that the project will ultimately be an MVP with actual functional implementation, not just an experimental item that can only be validated via the “verification bundle.”

4. Budget:

1000 USD does not exceed the cap for purely technical budgets. However, please adjust the formatting of the content so the committee can read it smoothly during the review.

Best of luck
xingtian

3 Likes
3

Hi @xingtianchunyan,

Thanks so much for the detailed feedback — really appreciate you taking the time before formal review. Here are my responses:

1. Proposal formatting
Updated — the title now starts with “Spark Program | [your project name]”. I’ve also cleaned up the excessive line breaks in the budget and timeline sections.

2. Deliverable clarity

  • The tool supports [DOB/0 only / DOB/1 only / both DOB/0 and DOB/1]. (fill in — this determines a lot of how the committee scopes the review)

  • The verification bundle will consist of: [e.g., exported SVG/image-URI output + the feature config JSON + a reproducible script or CLI command that regenerates the output from the config]. This lets a reviewer independently confirm that a given feature definition deterministically produces the same DOB output.

3. MVP vs. experimental
To confirm: this will be a fully functional MVP — a working web tool that a user can actually operate end-to-end (define features → live preview → export), not just a proof-of-concept that only makes sense through the verification bundle. The verification bundle is a supplementary artifact for the committee’s reproducibility check, not the primary deliverable.

4. Budget
Formatting cleaned up so the $1000 breakdown reads clearly (no more scattered line breaks).

Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like clarified before this goes to the committee.

Best,
Frank

3 Likes
4

Hi @Frank ，

To avoid delaying the project, I have just marked this post as Submitted. The proposal post’s title still hasn’t been corrected—please fix it as soon as possible to avoid leaving a negative first impression on the committee.

My VPN had issues for a few days, so I couldn’t provide feedback earlier. I hope you understand the resulting time pressure and can respond promptly.

Best,
xingtian

2 Likes
5

Hi @Frank,

Thank you for taking the time to join Spark Program.

The committee has completed its review and, after careful discussion, regrets to Reject the DOB Pattern Studio project at this time.

We want to be transparent about the reasoning behind this decision:

  • Limited community/ecosystem interest:
    Currently, the DOB Pattern method has not garnered significant attention within the CKB ecosystem or among community users, and it is inconsistent with the ecosystem’s current strategic direction.

Thank you very much for all the hard work your team has put in. Keep building, and feel free to reach out anytime!

Best,
xingtian
On behalf of the Spark Program Committee

1 Like
6

Hi @xingtianchunyan,

Thank you for the transparency on the committee’s reasoning — that’s genuinely helpful, and we appreciate you taking the time to spell it out rather than leaving us guessing.

We hear the feedback clearly: DOB Pattern tooling isn’t where community attention or ecosystem strategy is right now. Rather than push on a direction the ecosystem isn’t prioritizing, we’ve been looking at where the current strategic focus actually is — the Fiber Network, RGB++, and BTCFi more broadly — and we’re putting together a new Spark idea aligned with that direction instead.

We’d love to submit again once it’s ready, and would really value a quick gut-check from you or the committee before we do, so we don’t miss the mark twice. Thanks again for the honest feedback and for the work you all put into reviewing these.

Best,
Frank (Tefro Labs)

2 Likes