apk-reverse/docs/verification-jiongnew/REPO-DECISIONS.md

Repository decisions, and the evidence behind them

The pass was framed as a choice between two ways to split the skill. The measurement rejected the framing, and this file records why, then states exactly what changed in the repository.

---

The decision: no second skill. Fix skill A instead.

This is the "暂不建" outcome the brief explicitly permits, and it is supported by the evidence rather than by preference.

Why the framing did not survive contact with the target

The two candidate splits were:

• by entry point — everything reached from an APK (including Flutter/IL2CPP) stays in A; only standalone ELF goes to B. Cost: A keeps growing.
• by logic location — A keeps only logic genuinely in dex; Flutter, IL2CPP, hardened dex, native and standalone ELF all move out. Cost: four references (~962 lines) relocate.

jiongnew is exactly the case that was supposed to discriminate between them: Flutter (machine-code side) whose entry point is an APK. It produced a third answer.

The problem is not where the content lives. It is one missing dependency. Everything the kit does after a snapshot dumper has produced pp.txt works correctly — the reference index, the disassembly windows, the caller index, all verified against capstone. The single thing it cannot do is get from the binary to pp.txt, because it has no snapshot container resolver, and that gap is not bridgeable from inside the scripts (4,241 shared strings, 4,237 distinct deltas, no constant).

A second skill would relocate Flutter documentation without adding the capability that is missing. The gap would travel with the documents. Worse, it would split the Coverage claim in two and leave the user of either skill less able to tell what actually works.

The supporting evidence, in order of weight

1. The kit works where it was tested. dart_disasm.py decoded identically to capstone (32/32, 96/96); the caller index re-derived independently agrees with symmetric difference 0; dart_pool_strings.py was byte-exact on 18,356 of 18,363 rows with all 7 residuals explained as TSV escaping, and 12/12 random offsets re-located from raw bytes. These are not the results of a tool that needs replacing.
2. The blocker is a front end, and free front ends exist. aotopsy ran the full pipeline out of the box — 30,586 functions, 39,202 pool entries, 175,120 call edges, 95.7% BLR annotation — with no toolchain: pure Go, no compiler, no Dart SDK. That is the "decoding the object pool" capability, delivered as a binary.
3. A split would contradict the Coverage section's own structure. Coverage already lists Flutter under covered by verified mechanisms and Unity/IL2CPP under not covered. The real defect is that the Flutter line overstates what ships. The fix for an overstated claim is to correct the claim, not to relocate it.
4. The cost of the split lands on the wrong people. Moving dart-aot.md, native-and-so.md, native-tamper-and-suicide.md and code-virtualization-and-custom-linkers.md would break 162 cross-references that currently resolve, and would move material that this pass could not exercise at all (packers, VMP) on the strength of evidence gathered about something else.

What the second skill would have been, stated so the decision can be revisited

If a future pass ever does need one, the boundary the evidence points at is "standalone machine-code targets with no APK" — a plain .so/ELF analysed on its own. That is the split the entry-point option described, and it remains untested: this target is an APK, so no evidence for or against it was produced here. The pass therefore declines to build it and says so plainly rather than inventing a skeleton.

---

Changes made

references/dart-aot.md

Change	Reason
Documented a pinned front end (aotopsy v1.6.0, sha256 5a90bcf2…fdc1; Dart 2.10–3.13; ARM64 + x86_64) as the entry point for the workflow, with blutter as the alternative when a compiled Dart VM is acceptable	The workflow's step 1 was not performable with what the skill shipped. Measured: the kit cannot go from a string to a pool offset.
Corrected the build budget: ≈78 s measured, not "tens of minutes"	Measured end to end, log timestamps 04:45:59 → 04:47:17
Corrected the compiler requirement: MSVC 19.34 (Nov 2022) suffices	Verified by compiling and running a std::format probe with it
Removed the claim that asm/ contains no instructions	Measured false: the file carries class layouts, signatures, a full instruction listing, pool annotations and resolved call targets
Recorded the version-probe trap: aotopsy doctor labels the snapshot 3.6.2, the engine banner and snapshot hash say 3.6.0, and 3.6.0 is correct	Three independent facts agree on 3.6.0; aotopsy's number is a structural profile label and must not be passed to a VM-compiling tool
Noted that the two-byte chaining test in §7 did not hold here	9,840 two-byte CJK candidates → 2,081 chained runs, all junk

references/references-index / script defects

dart_pprefs.py is fixed in the repository. The defect — only the GP register file decoded, so ldr dD,[x27,#imm] (0xFD400000) and an entire class of double constants were dropped — was re-verified on the patched script against capstone over the whole .text: 0 displacements and 0 sites of difference, against 302 and 1,802 before.

find_refs.py, elf_plt.py and the so_constpatch.py alignment defect are documented but not fixed. The repository's rule is that nothing ships unrun, and the fixes for these were not exercised against the real target in this pass:

• find_refs.py — accepting .dex input means deciding how to read dex without baksmali/jadx present, which is a design decision, not a one-line patch.
• elf_plt.py — the three-bound fix was verified on a copy (work/native/tools/elf_plt_fixed.py), not in the repository, so the repository version is untouched.
• so_constpatch.py — the alignment fix needs a padding implementation and a zipalign story.

Each is recorded in docs/verification-jiongnew/FINDINGS.md with its root cause and the fix sketch, which is the honest form: the knowledge is preserved and the unrun code does not enter the tree.

SKILL.md — Coverage

Rewritten so the Flutter line states what was measured:

• In coverage: Flutter/Dart AOT analysis given a snapshot dump — pool-reference counting, disassembly windows, caller indexing and patching — all verified on a real Dart 3.6.0 libapp.so, with the front end named as a documented dependency.
• Explicit new dependency line: the kit does not decode the object pool; it requires a snapshot dumper (aotopsy pinned, or blutter built from source) and says so instead of implying otherwise.
• Unchanged: Unity/IL2CPP, React Native/Hermes, iOS, defeating a server-side authority, and the general-unpacker/anti-detection arms race all remain uncovered.
• Added: an explicit statement that packer, VMP and integrity-check scenarios were not exercised by this pass, so no claim is upgraded on their behalf.

SKILL.md — the three hand-off points

Written from the perspective that a hand-off is a pointer, and that duplicating content across two places is how the two copies drift. Each one says what the other side owns.

1. JNI — Java declaring a native method ↔ its .so implementation. Static linkage shows as Java_com_pkg_Class_method and disappears under R8 short names; dynamic registration leaves the symbol table empty and must be found at RegisterNatives. This target ships the static form (FlutterJNI.loadLibrary appears in classes3.dex) but the pass did not trace a JNI boundary end to end, so the section carries the unverified label.
2. Hardening — dex-side observation of a packer implies a native-side shell implementation. Not exercised here: this target has no packer. Recorded as a pointer with that stated.
3. Existing boundary documents — native-and-so.md and native-tamper-and-suicide.md read native anomalies from the APK side (immediate SIGSEGV after a repack, Java claiming the check passed while the process dies). That belongs in A; deep native work is the other side. The new section points each way rather than repeating either.

docs/verification-jiongnew/

New directory holding this pass's evidence record. README.md states the folder is a measurement record, not shipped target data, and carries the strength-label convention. It is referenced from SKILL.md so a reader can check the Coverage claims against the runs behind them.

The APK is not in the repository (.gitignore already excludes *.apk) and no credential or token appears in any file.

README.md

Updated for the directory tree, the install command and the division of labour between the skills, plus a pointer to the verification record.

---

Verification

All four gates were re-run against the final tree and their real output is in docs/verification-jiongnew/VERIFY-OUTPUT.md:

• python -B check_repo.py
• python -B check_refs.py
• python -B build_scripts.py . <out>
• npx skills add newliver666/apk-reverse --list

Two behaviours of the checkers worth knowing, both established by experiment during this pass: check_repo.py and check_refs.py have no argparse, so --help is silently ignored and the full check runs; and running check_repo.py with PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 set produces a spurious failure (exit 1, one script reported as crashed) because its subprocess.run(..., text=True) does not pin an encoding while the child emits UTF-8 — the parent then decodes as cp936 and the streams come back empty.