Skip to main content

AXON

AXON is a compiled language whose target is a model, not a processor. You write a program; the compiler type-checks it, lowers it to an IR, and a native Rust runtime executes it against an LLM backend — with the same determinism, diagnostics and exit codes you expect from a compiler.

The point is not that it orchestrates prompts. It is what the compiler can refuse.

The claim, in one sentence​

A program that sends regulated data across an unguarded boundary does not compile.

Not "raises a warning at runtime". Not "fails an audit later". axon check exits 1, the same as a syntax error, and nothing downstream builds.

See it fail

Thirty seconds: install, write a program that carries PHI, delete its shield, watch the compiler refuse it by name.

What that buys you​

Compile-time compliance

type PatientRecord compliance [HIPAA, GDPR] is a type. Every boundary that carries it must declare a shield whose coverage is a real set difference over the regulatory classes — and the vocabulary itself is closed, so a typo cannot satisfy it.

Epistemic types

A model's output is not a string. It carries a level — know, believe, speculate, doubt — and the language refuses to let a guess be laundered into a fact at an egress boundary.

One binary

cargo install axon-lang. A native Rust + C23 runtime: lexer, parser, type checker, IR generator, the effects runtime, the HTTP/WebSocket surface. No interpreter, no Python.

Proof-carrying

axon pcc prove emits an independently verifiable proof object; axon pcc verify re-derives the obligations from the artifact, so a deploy gate can check what a build claimed without trusting the builder.

What it does not claim​

Honesty is cheaper than a retraction, so: what membership in the regulatory vocabulary buys is machine-checked at compile time — vocabulary closure and shield coverage at every boundary that carries a regulated class, re-verified at deploy.

What it does not buy is the semantic obligation of each regulation. What HIPAA requires operationally is your shield and flow design. AXON supplies the mechanism; you supply the policy. The audit engine says so in the evidence it emits, and its FIPS 140-3 posture is algorithmically conformant, not formally validated — CAVP and CMVP are laboratory engagements no compiler can close.