PR Metrics

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 11987 is baseline-3 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11987/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11987)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11987"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/11987/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 3 criteria. These criteria are from baseline version v2025.10.10 with updated criteria text from version v2026.02.19. Criteria that are new in version v2026.02.19 are labeled "future" and will begin to be enforced starting 2026-06-01. Please provide answers to the "future" criteria before that date.

Baseline Series: Baseline Level 1 Baseline Level 2 Baseline Level 3

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A GitHub Action & Azure Pipelines task for augmenting pull request titles to let reviewers quickly determine PR size and test coverage.

    Please use SPDX license expression format; examples include "Apache-2.0", "BSD-2-Clause", "BSD-3-Clause", "GPL-2.0+", "LGPL-3.0+", "MIT", and "(BSD-2-Clause OR Ruby)". Do not include single quotes or double quotes.
    If there is more than one language, list them as comma-separated values (spaces optional) and sort them from most to least used. If there is a long list, please list at least the first three most common ones. If there is no language (e.g., this is a documentation-only or test-only project), use the single character "-". Please use a conventional capitalization for each language, e.g., "JavaScript".
    The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) is a structured naming scheme for information technology systems, software, and packages. It is used in a number of systems and databases when reporting vulnerabilities.

 Controls 20/21 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a job is assigned permissions in a CI/CD pipeline, the source code or configuration MUST only assign the minimum privileges necessary for the corresponding activity. [OSPS-AC-04.02]
    Configure the project's CI/CD pipelines to assign the lowest available permissions to users and services by default, elevating permissions only when necessary for specific tasks. In some version control systems, this may be possible at the organizational or repository level. If not, set permissions at the top level of the pipeline.

    All three GitHub Actions workflow files (build.yml at https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml, release-initiate.yml at https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-initiate.yml, release-publish.yml at https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-publish.yml) set permissions: {} at the top level, defaulting all jobs to no permissions. Each job explicitly requests only the specific permissions it requires. For example, the release job in release-publish.yml requests only attestations: write and id-token: write, while the build job in build.yml requests permissions: {} (no permissions). The Azure DevOps pipelines extend the Office.Official.PipelineTemplate and Office.Unofficial.PipelineTemplate templates, which enforce organisational security policies including least-privilege defaults.


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    (Future criterion) CI/CD pipelines which accept trusted collaborator input MUST sanitize and validate that input prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.04]
    CI/CD pipelines should sanitize (quote, escape or exit on expected values) all collaborator inputs on explicit workflow executions. While collaborators are generally trusted, manual inputs to a workflow cannot be reviewed and could be abused by an account takeover or insider threat.

    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, all assets within that release MUST be clearly associated with the release identifier or another unique identifier for the asset. [OSPS-BR-02.02]
    Assign a unique version identifier to each software asset produced by the project, following a consistent naming convention or numbering scheme. Examples include SemVer, CalVer, or git commit id.

    Each release is assigned a unique Semantic Versioning (https://semver.org/) identifier (e.g., v1.7.11). The version is maintained consistently across package.json (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/package.json), task.json (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/src/task/task.json), and vss-extension.json (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/src/vss-extension.json). Release assets (the VSIX extension, Sigstore signature bundle, and CycloneDX SBOM) are published as part of the GitHub Release (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/releases) tagged with the version identifier. The release-publish.yml workflow (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-publish.yml) reads the version from release-publish-trigger.txt (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/support/release-publish-trigger.txt) and creates the release with that version tag.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST define a policy for managing secrets and credentials used by the project. The policy should include guidelines for storing, accessing, and rotating secrets and credentials. [OSPS-BR-07.02]
    Document how secrets and credentials are managed and used within the project. This should include details on how secrets are stored (e.g., using a secrets management tool), how access is controlled, and how secrets are rotated or updated. Ensure that sensitive information is not hard-coded in the source code or stored in version control systems.

    The project documents its secrets and credentials management policy in docs/secrets-management.md (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/secrets-management.md). The policy covers all secrets used by the project (including GITHUB_TOKEN, PR_METRICS_TOKEN, and ESRP service connections), how they are stored (exclusively in GitHub Secrets and Azure DevOps variable groups), how access is controlled (repository-level permissions, fork restrictions, least-privilege workflow permissions), and how secrets are rotated (GITHUB_TOKEN is auto-rotated per workflow run; PATs are reviewed periodically). The policy also describes preventative measures including Gitleaks secret scanning, environment variable usage instead of command-line arguments, and automatic log masking.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the integrity and authenticity of the release assets. [OSPS-DO-03.01]
    Instructions in the project should contain information about the technology used, the commands to run, and the expected output. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    The docs/verification.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/verification.md) provides comprehensive instructions for verifying release integrity and authenticity using two independent methods: Build provenance attestation, verified via GitHub CLI (gh attestation verify), confirming the artefact was built by the official release workflow and hasn't been tampered with. Cosign signature, verified via Sigstore cosign (cosign verify-blob), confirming cryptographic integrity using keyless signing backed by GitHub's OIDC tokens. The documentation includes prerequisites, step-by-step verification commands, expected output, and troubleshooting guidance. This documentation is maintained in the repository's docs/ folder, separate from the build and release pipeline configuration.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the expected identity of the person or process authoring the software release. [OSPS-DO-03.02]
    The expected identity may be in the form of key IDs used to sign, issuer and identity from a sigstore certificate, or other similar forms. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    The docs/verification.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/verification.md) includes instructions to verify the expected identity of the process authoring the release. The cosign verification command specifies the expected identity via: --certificate-identity-regexp matching ^https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/.github/workflows/release-publish.yml@refs/heads/main$ and --certificate-oidc-issuer matching https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com. This confirms that the release was authored by the release-publish.yml workflow running on the main branch of the microsoft/PR-Metrics repository, using GitHub's OIDC identity provider. The build provenance attestation additionally links the artefact to a specific workflow run and commit. This documentation is maintained separately from the build and release pipeline.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a descriptive statement about the scope and duration of support for each release. [OSPS-DO-04.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for the project's released software assets, the project should have a SUPPORT.md file, a "Support" section in SECURITY.md, or other documentation explaining the support lifecycle, including the expected duration of support for each release, the types of support provided (e.g., bug fixes, security updates), and any relevant policies or procedures for obtaining support.

    The SUPPORT.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/SUPPORT.md) documents the support lifecycle for the project. It states that PR Metrics follows a rolling release model where only the latest release is actively supported with bug fixes and security updates. Previous releases do not receive patches. The document also describes the end-of-life policy: should the project become inactive, the last published release will remain available but will not receive further updates. Consumers will be notified of any planned end of life through GitHub Discussions.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST provide a descriptive statement when releases or versions will no longer receive security updates. [OSPS-DO-05.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for security fixes, the project should have a SUPPORT.md or other documentation explaining the project's policy for security updates.

    The SUPPORT.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/SUPPORT.md) provides a clear statement on when releases will no longer receive security updates: "Once a new version is published, the previous version no longer receives security updates." The document further states that critical security issues may result in an expedited patch release, and that consumers should always run the latest version. The end-of-life section clarifies that if the project becomes inactive, the last release will remain available but will not receive security patches.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST have a policy that code collaborators are reviewed prior to granting escalated permissions to sensitive resources. [OSPS-GV-04.01]
    Publish an enforceable policy in the project documentation that requires code collaborators to be reviewed and approved before being granted escalated permissions to sensitive resources, such as merge approval or access to secrets. It is recommended that vetting includes establishing a justifiable lineage of identity such as confirming the contributor's association with a known trusted organization.

    The GOVERNANCE.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md) includes a "Collaborator Review Policy" section that requires contributors to be reviewed and approved before being granted escalated permissions to sensitive resources. The policy requires nomination by an existing maintainer based on sustained quality contributions, identity verification through association with a known trusted organisation, and approval by at least one existing maintainer. Permissions are granted at the minimum level required for the contributor's role. Access to signing infrastructure is restricted to automated CI/CD pipelines and cannot be granted to individual contributors.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, all compiled released software assets MUST be delivered with a software bill of materials. [OSPS-QA-02.02]
    It is recommended to auto-generate SBOMs at build time using a tool that has been vetted for accuracy. This enables users to ingest this data in a standardized approach alongside other projects in their environment.

    The release-publish.yml workflow (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-publish.yml) generates a CycloneDX (https://cyclonedx.org/) Software Bill of Materials (SBOM) using "npm sbom --sbom-format cyclonedx --sbom-type library". The SBOM (ms-omex.PRMetrics.sbom.cdx.json) is included as a release asset alongside the VSIX extension and Sigstore signature bundle on the GitHub Releases page (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/releases). This enables consumers to ingest dependency data in a standardised format alongside other projects in their environment.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release comprising multiple source code repositories, all subprojects MUST enforce security requirements that are as strict or stricter than the primary codebase. [OSPS-QA-04.02]
    Any additional subproject code repositories produced by the project and compiled into a release must enforce security requirements as applicable to the status and intent of the respective codebase. In addition to following the corresponding OSPS Baseline requirements, this may include requiring a security review, ensuring that it is free of vulnerabilities, and ensuring that it is free of known security issues.

    The project does not have any subprojects. It is a single codebase that produces artefacts for both GitHub Actions and Azure DevOps Pipelines via shared source code with platform-specific abstraction layers, as described in docs/cross-platform-architecture.md (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/cross-platform-architecture.md).


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, project's documentation MUST clearly document when and how tests are run. [OSPS-QA-06.02]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains how to run the tests locally and how to run the tests in the CI/CD pipeline. The documentation should explain what the tests are testing and how to interpret the results.

    The project's testing procedures are documented across multiple files: docs/development.md (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/development.md) contains a "Testing" section explaining how to run tests locally ("npm test"), the test framework (Mocha at https://mochajs.org/ with ts-mockito at https://github.com/NagRock/ts-mockito), the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern used, code coverage reporting via c8 (https://github.com/bcoe/c8), and manual test case instructions. CONTRIBUTING.md (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md) describes how to run tests locally and in CI/CD, what the tests cover, and how to interpret results (pass/fail status and coverage percentages). It also documents that all automated checks in build.yml (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml) (unit tests, CodeQL, Super-Linter) must pass before a pull request can be merged.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project's documentation MUST include a policy that all major changes to the software produced by the project should add or update tests of the functionality in an automated test suite. [OSPS-QA-06.03]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains the policy for adding or updating tests. The policy should explain what constitutes a major change and what tests should be added or updated.

    The CONTRIBUTING.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md) includes a "Test Policy for Major Changes" section requiring that all major changes include corresponding test updates. The policy defines specific requirements for new features (unit tests covering new functionality and edge cases), bug fixes (regression tests), and refactoring (existing tests must continue to pass). A "major change" is defined as any modification that alters extension behaviour, adds configuration parameters, changes metric calculations, or modifies API interactions. The pull request template (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/pull_request_template.md) includes a testing checklist to enforce compliance.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a commit is made to the primary branch, the project's version control system MUST require at least one non-author human approval of the changes before merging. [OSPS-QA-07.01]
    Configure the project's version control system to require at least one non-author human approval of changes before merging into the release or primary branch. This can be achieved by requiring a pull request to be reviewed and approved by at least one other collaborator before it can be merged.

    The repository is protected by multiple rulesets (default-ruleset, microsoft-production-ruleset) that prevent direct commits to the main branch and require pull request reviews. At least one non-author approval is required before a pull request can be merged. The CODEOWNERS file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/CODEOWNERS) assigns @microsoft/omex as the required reviewer for all files. See repository rulesets at https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/rules.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project MUST perform a threat modeling and attack surface analysis to understand and protect against attacks on critical code paths, functions, and interactions within the system. [OSPS-SA-03.02]
    Threat modeling is an activity where the project looks at the codebase, associated processes and infrastructure, interfaces, key components and "thinks like a hacker" and brainstorms how the system be be broken or compromised. Each identified threat is listed out so the project can then think about how to proactively avoid or close off any gaps/vulnerabilities that could arise. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    The project maintains a comprehensive security assessment in docs/security-assessment.md (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/security-assessment.md), which includes a Mermaid diagram of trust boundaries, an asset sensitivity table, and detailed threat analysis covering five threat categories: access token exposure, injection via untrusted PR content, supply chain attacks on dependencies, CI/CD permission escalation, and Git command injection. Each threat includes likelihood and impact ratings with specific mitigations. The assessment also identifies residual risks and specifies a review cadence.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, any vulnerabilities in the software components not affecting the project MUST be accounted for in a VEX document, augmenting the vulnerability report with non-exploitability details. [OSPS-VM-04.02]
    Establish a VEX feed communicating the exploitability status of known vulnerabilities, including assessment details or any mitigations in place preventing vulnerable code from being executed.

    The docs/security-scanning-policy.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/security-scanning-policy.md) documents the project's VEX policy. When a vulnerability is identified in a dependency that does not affect PR Metrics (e.g., the vulnerable code path is not reachable), the finding is assessed and documented as non-exploitable via GitHub Security Advisories (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/security/advisories) and Dependabot alert dismissals with documented reasons. As of the last assessment, no known vulnerabilities in project dependencies have been identified as non-exploitable requiring VEX documentation; all known vulnerabilities are either resolved through dependency updates or actively being addressed per the documented remediation thresholds.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. [OSPS-VM-05.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    The docs/security-scanning-policy.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/security-scanning-policy.md) defines remediation thresholds for SCA findings. Critical and high severity findings must be resolved by the next patch release. Medium and low severity findings must be addressed by the next scheduled release. The policy includes a severity-to-remediation-target mapping table and describes the process for identifying, prioritising, and remediating findings via Dependabot alerts, CodeQL, and Component Governance.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy to address SCA violations prior to any release. [OSPS-VM-05.02]
    Document a policy in the project to address applicable Software Composition Analysis results before any release, and add status checks that verify compliance with that policy prior to release.

    The docs/security-scanning-policy.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/security-scanning-policy.md) documents a pre-release policy requiring that: (1) no unresolved Dependabot alerts of critical or high severity exist; (2) all npm dependencies are updated to their latest compatible versions via the release workflow; (3) Component Governance detection in the Azure DevOps pipeline completes without blocking findings; and (4) non-exploitable findings are documented. The release-initiate.yml workflow (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/release-initiate.yml) enforces dependency updates as part of the release process, and the Azure DevOps pipeline applies the M365 Guardian policy.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, all changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for malicious dependencies and known vulnerabilities in dependencies, then blocked in the event of violations, except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-05.03]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Software Composition Analysis tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.

    All changes to the codebase are automatically evaluated for malicious dependencies and known vulnerabilities: CodeQL (https://codeql.github.com/) runs on every pull request via the Validate job in build.yml (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/workflows/build.yml), using security-and-quality, security-experimental, and security-extended query sets. Dependabot alerts (https://docs.github.com/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-alerts/about-dependabot-alerts) are configured at the repository level. Component Governance (https://docs.opensource.microsoft.com/tools/cg/) runs dependency detection in the Azure DevOps PR pipeline. The repository rulesets require that all status checks pass before merging. Non-exploitable findings are documented via Dependabot alert dismissals with justification or in the security scanning policy.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SAST findings. [OSPS-VM-06.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of Static Application Security Testing (SAST) findings. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    The docs/security-scanning-policy.md file (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/docs/security-scanning-policy.md) defines remediation thresholds for SAST findings. Critical and high severity findings block pull request merging via required status checks and must be resolved immediately. Medium severity findings must be resolved before the next release. Low severity findings are addressed on a best-effort basis. The policy covers CodeQL, ESLint, CredScan, and PoliCheck findings, and describes how suppressed findings are documented with justification.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, all changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for security weaknesses and blocked in the event of violations except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-06.02]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.

    All changes to the codebase are automatically evaluated for security weaknesses: CodeQL (https://codeql.github.com/) is a required status check on every pull request, running extended security query sets against the JavaScript/TypeScript codebase. Super-Linter (https://github.com/super-linter/super-linter) runs ESLint and Gitleaks (https://github.com/gitleaks/gitleaks) on every pull request. CredScan (https://secdevtools.azurewebsites.net/helpcredscan.html) and Guardian PostAnalysis run in the Azure DevOps PR pipeline, enforcing the M365 security policy. The repository rulesets require that all status checks pass before merging. Suppressed findings are documented with justification in configuration files such as CredScanSuppressions.json (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/azure-devops/CredScanSuppressions.json) and gitleaks.toml (https://github.com/microsoft/PR-Metrics/blob/main/.github/linters/gitleaks.toml).



This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit Muiris Woulfe and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Muiris Woulfe.
Entry created on 2026-02-19 17:32:37 UTC, last updated on 2026-02-27 19:06:06 UTC. Last lost passing badge on 2026-02-23 14:15:17 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-02-23 14:43:51 UTC.