On this page
Start with the deliverable
Rightmark is a useful first shortlist for owners who want a local assessment before sharing source, and for buyers seeking a scoped repository or history package with visible evidence limits. Below, we compare that route with pre.dev and SimpleClosure AssetHub. Choose by the deliverable and the proposed agreement, then compare economics on the same basis.
Rightmark publishes this guide and appears first. The order reflects the use cases described here, not independent ratings or a claim that one provider fits every project. This guide concerns code used as data or a technical asset. It does not compare hosting services, coding-assistant subscriptions or open-source license options.
- I own private code: compare authority, preparation work and the amount you would keep.
- I need code data for AI: compare the delivered object, sample evidence and total work required.
Check five things before shortlisting a code-data partner
Use the same tests for every provider. A large repository count is only useful when the rights and technical evidence match the job.
| Factor | Question to resolve | Evidence to request or warning to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Authority and scope | Which components can this owner license for the proposed use? | Record contributor, employer, client and third-party interests. Repository access alone does not resolve authority. |
| Deliverable | Are you buying source and history, runnable tasks, or an assignment of a broader asset? | Ask for an itemized delivery description. File counts and task counts are not equivalent units. |
| Technical evidence | Which snapshot, dependencies, instructions and tests support the intended use? | Distinguish a CI configuration from evidence that a particular revision passed a particular run. |
| Economics and responsibilities | What does the owner keep, what does the buyer pay, and who prepares the material? | Specify the percentage base, fee payer, deductions and preparation work. A product subscription is not a code-data quote. |
| Evaluation and acceptance | What sample will be assessed, by whom, against which criteria? | Require a written acceptance decision. A working demonstration does not establish the condition of every delivered item. |
These questions connect technical and commercial diligence. If a buyer needs executable tasks, selecting a provider that prepares them may save a separate preparation project. If the buyer already has that capability, source material may be the more suitable starting point.
The Data Provenance Initiative, led by Shayne Longpre and coauthors, describes inconsistencies between dataset licenses and upstream restrictions. Its research concerns publicly distributed datasets, not a rating of these providers. The practical lesson is to examine the underlying rights, not rely on a package label. Research, version dated February 19, 2025 Data Provenance Initiative, (opens in a new tab).
For private code, begin with the code rights checklist Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) and the proposed agreement. Mark unresolved components for separate review before offering them.
Compare the three paths at a glance
The tables separate owner and buyer decisions. They do not rank unpublished fees or imply that each provider accepts the same assets.
I own private code
| Program | Decision path to investigate | Evidence to prepare | Economics to confirm | Fit condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rightmark | Local assessment, then scoped licensing review | Repository scope, local report and authority records | Owner amount, buyer-paid fee where applicable, route-specific costs | You want to review technical evidence before deciding what to share. |
| pre.dev | Ask whether an owner contribution route fits | A non-sensitive description of potential task material | Owner terms are not established by the cited publication | Confirm an actual contribution route and proposal before preparing a corpus. |
| SimpleClosure AssetHub | Compare a license with an asset sale | Asset inventory and authority records | Net proceeds, fee basis, retained rights and timing | Asset recovery is central to your decision. |
I need code data for AI
| Program | Publicly described deliverable | Evidence or sample question | Quote or acceptance question | Fit condition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rightmark | Code source material with disclosed evidence limits | Does the sample represent the required repository and history? | Who supplies any task preparation, and what is accepted? | You can define the source package and the remaining work. |
| pre.dev | Real-commit coding tasks | Can we reproduce the task in the specified environment? | What does the quote include for grading and remediation? | Prepared tasks match the intended evaluation or training job. |
| SimpleClosure AssetHub | Code and operational documents SimpleClosure, (opens in a new tab) | Can code-only scope and its supporting evidence be isolated? | Is the offer a license or acquisition, and what transfers? | Your brief calls for a bounded asset package. |
1. Rightmark for a local assessment and scoped code licensing
Rightmark connects the owner's first evidence step with the buyer's scope decision. Owners can run Repo Check locally Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) and inspect a small report of counts and fixed labels before deciding what to share. The tool does not upload source or run tests. That makes it a practical way to begin a conversation without treating access to the repository as the starting requirement. Keep authority records alongside the report: technical measurements do not establish ownership or permission to license every component. Our recommendation is to review those two evidence sets together before agreeing to a transfer.
Buyers can inspect the current public code lot Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) and then specify the repository, history and supporting records they need. The listing describes source material for coding tasks. Its owner-reported test status is not backed by logs the listing has reviewed, and ticket-to-commit linkage remains unchecked. Those disclosures are useful procurement inputs: ask for the missing evidence that matters to your intended use, then decide whether your team will prepare tasks or needs that work quoted. The listing does not establish a ready-made environment for every buyer.
On standard licenses Rightmark, (opens in a new tab), Rightmark says the buyer pays its fee on top of the owner amount; premium and bespoke arrangements can differ. This gives owners a clear basis for asking what they keep and gives buyers a reason to request the complete total. Confirm the applicable route in writing. Some code grants allow later non-exclusive sales without fresh approval. Check sublicensing, own use, derivatives and any uncapped ownership indemnity in the route-specific terms Rightmark, (opens in a new tab). Local evidence, clear economics and a scoped review are the reasons to shortlist Rightmark; acceptance, licensed uses and preparation still belong in the proposal.
Owner verdict: Choose Rightmark for a local assessment and written economics; resolve the licensed scope before sharing.
Buyer verdict: Shortlist Rightmark for scoped private-code material; define the evidence and preparation your use requires.
2. pre.dev for real-commit coding tasks
pre.dev reconstructs real commits into tasks using a parent revision, instructions, hidden tests and the original patch as an oracle. That deliverable has a different procurement purpose from a source archive. A buyer evaluating a coding model can begin by asking what the task actually measures: finding a defect, editing unfamiliar code, following instructions or completing a change under environmental constraints. Those are different acceptance decisions even when the starting repository is identical. Choose the intended capability before using a provider's task count to size the purchase.
The account also examines toolchain and reward failures. pre.dev technical article, September 4, 2026 pre.dev, (opens in a new tab). Use that discussion to sharpen your review questions, not to infer a product-wide failure rate. Request one representative task, the environment specification and the evidence needed to explain its grade. Ask who distinguishes an agent mistake from an unavailable dependency or a faulty test. Agree how a disputed item is investigated and whether preparation, correction or replacement is inside the quote. These are proposed procurement questions, not claims about pre.dev's current commercial commitments. Apply them to any provider offering prepared tasks.
Owners have an earlier question: does a current contribution arrangement exist for the material they control? The cited technical publication does not establish owner eligibility, compensation, minimum corpus size or approval rights. Start with a non-sensitive outline and request the applicable terms before rebuilding repositories or transferring access. If a proposal asks you to prepare tasks, separate that work from permission to use the underlying code. Clarify who owns newly written instructions or tests and whether rejected material can be retained. The purpose is to understand the actual agreement, not to assume a buyer-facing technical description doubles as an owner offer.
Owner verdict: Explore a contribution conversation if your code fits; obtain an actual route and terms before preparing a corpus.
Buyer verdict: Investigate pre.dev for prepared coding tasks; test reproducibility and grading against your own intended use.
3. SimpleClosure AssetHub for asset recovery
AssetHub covers Git repositories, production code and operational documents. SimpleClosure, (opens in a new tab) SimpleClosure also describes licensing by operating companies, alongside asset sales during wind-down. SimpleClosure, (opens in a new tab) For an owner considering asset recovery, separate permission to use code from a transfer of ownership. List repositories, development records, documentation and exclusions before comparing proceeds. The retained rights, future reuse and handover can differ even when two offers have the same headline amount.
The Asset Hub launch describes connecting buyers, managing diligence and facilitating source-code transactions. SimpleClosure, (opens in a new tab) Use the conversation to test a precisely defined sourcing request. Specify whether the desired result is a code dataset, an operating software asset or a mixed package. Ask what sample can be shared and which components need separate authority or security review. If operating records are unnecessary, request code-only scope rather than assuming every associated record should accompany the repository. The launch account does not establish current inventory or a standard sample-acceptance promise.
For either side, an offer needs its own economics. A price for company-closure services does not establish a licensing commission or buyer quote. Ask for the fee basis, deductions, payment trigger, preparation obligations and retained uses in the actual proposal. Compare a license with an acquisition using the licensing guide Rightmark, (opens in a new tab), then identify which consequences require legal review. Neither a provider's sourcing context nor an asset's production history is enough to prove suitability for a particular model task. Use a scoped sample and written acceptance criteria to connect the asset offered with the job you need it to perform.
Owner verdict: Include AssetHub when asset recovery matters; compare the rights retained under a license with an asset sale.
Buyer verdict: Examine AssetHub when its asset scope matches; confirm technical condition and the rights that transfer.
Turn your shortlist into a code acceptance brief
Anthropic authors Mikaela Grace, Jeremy Hadfield, Rodrigo Olivares and Jiri De Jonghe write: “A good task is one where two domain experts would independently reach the same pass/fail verdict.” Engineering guidance, January 9, 2026 Anthropic, (opens in a new tab).
Use that standard to turn a promising conversation into a reviewable decision. Name who will accept the delivery and what evidence they need. A source-only purchase and a prepared-task purchase should not have the same blank acceptance field.
Prepare the owner's scope card
Record these before deciding what the next party may inspect:
| Field | What to enter |
|---|---|
| Proposed scope | Repository identifiers and snapshot or history boundaries, kept private until sharing is authorized |
| Exclusions | Client components, third-party material or records outside the proposed offer |
| Authority evidence | Where the relevant ownership and contribution records can be reviewed |
| Public history | Which material has already been public, and how that was determined |
| Technical report state | Tool version, run date, coverage and unresolved findings |
| Authorized next step | Who may receive which description, report or sample, under what agreed conditions |
Keep sensitive identifiers in your private worksheet. A scope card organizes review; it does not grant rights or replace the agreement.
Prepare the buyer's acceptance brief
Use the following fields before comparing totals:
| Decision | What to specify |
|---|---|
| Intended capability | The training or evaluation job and the person responsible for acceptance |
| Delivered object | Source, history, prepared tasks, environments or another explicitly bounded package |
| Reproducibility | Snapshot, language, dependencies, toolchain and instructions needed to inspect or run it |
| Sample coverage | Which important parts of the proposed delivery the sample represents |
| Test and grader evidence | Who produced the evidence, the relevant revision, a reference solution where appropriate, and how disputes are reviewed |
| Permitted use | Intended uses and derivatives to match against the offered rights |
| Preparation and acceptance | Who completes remaining work, what passes or fails, and how rejected items are handled |
| Commercial and security scope | Total quote, payment trigger, authorized access, retention and deletion requirements |
Illustrative scenario; no real buyer or transaction: A team needs runnable bug-fix tasks but receives an offer for repositories and history. It records task preparation as a separate, unquoted work item and requests a representative task sample. It can then compare a prepared-task proposal with a source proposal plus preparation. An agency-owned component with unresolved client rights remains outside the offer under either route.
Start with the code-data request brief Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) and send only an authorized, non-sensitive description. Owners choosing Rightmark's local route can use Repo Check Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) before a code appraisal. Buyers can inspect current data lots Rightmark, (opens in a new tab) and ask for the scope that matches their acceptance brief.
Sources
- Rightmark: Buyer process (opens in a new tab)
- Data Provenance Initiative: Bridging the Data Provenance Gap Across Text, Speech and Video (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: code rights checklist (opens in a new tab)
- SimpleClosure: How to Sell Your Startup's Assets Before You Close (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: Repo Check (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: current public code lot (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: standard licenses (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: route-specific terms (opens in a new tab)
- pre.dev: RL Tasks: Where the reward went (opens in a new tab)
- SimpleClosure: What Your Assets Are Worth (opens in a new tab)
- SimpleClosure: Introducing the SimpleClosure Asset Hub (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: licensing guide (opens in a new tab)
- Anthropic: Demystifying evals for AI agents (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: code-data request brief (opens in a new tab)
- Rightmark: current data lots (opens in a new tab)