URL data sites are always very cool to me. The offline service worker part is great.

The analytics[1] is incredible. Thank you for sharing (and explaining)! I love this implementation.

I'm a little confused about the privacy mention. Maybe the fragment data isn't passed but that's not a particularly strong guarantee. The javascript still has access so privacy is just a promise as far as I can tell.

Am I misunderstanding something and is there a stronger mechanism in browsers preserving the fragment data's isolation? Or is there some way to prove a url is running a github repo without modification?

[1]:https://sdocs.dev/analytics

For the "prove the server doesn't touch the data" problem — the realistic path today is probably reproducible builds + published bundle hashes.

  Concretely: the sdocs.dev JS bundle should be byte-for-byte reproducible                                                                                                         
  from a clean checkout at a given commit. You publish { gitSha, bundleSha256 }
  on the landing. Users (or agents) can compute the hash of what their browser                                                                                                     
  actually loaded (DevTools → Sources → Save As → sha256) and compare.                                                                                                             
   
  That closes the "we swapped the JS after deploy" gap. It doesn't close                                                                                                           
  "we swapped it between the verification moment and now" — SRI for SPA
  entrypoints is still not really a thing. That layer is on browser vendors.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                   
  The "two agents review every merge" idea upthread is creative, but I worry                                                                                                       
  that once the check is automated people stop reading what's actually                                                                                                             
  verified. A dumb published hash is harder to fake without getting caught.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                   
  (FWIW, working on a similar trust problem from the other end — a CLI + phone                                                                                                     
  app that relays AI agent I/O between a dev's machine and their phone                                                                                                             
  [codeagent-mobile.com]. "Your code never leaves your machine" is easy to                                                                                                         
  say, genuinely hard to prove.)

Thanks for the kind words re the analytics!

You are right re privacy. It is possible to go from url hash -> parse -> server (that’s not what SDocs does to be clear).

I’ve been thinking about how to prove our privacy mechanism. The idea I have in my head at the moment is to have 2+ established coding agents review the code after every merge to the codebase and to provide a signal (maybe visible in the footer) that, according to them it is secure and the check was made after the latest merge. Maybe overkill?! Or maybe a new way to “prove” things?? If you have other ideas please let me know.