model-switchboard

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 badge status on your project page! The badge status looks like this: Badge level for project 12820 is passing Here is how to embed it:
You can show your badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Best Practices](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12820/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12820)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12820"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12820/badge"></a>


These are the Passing level criteria. You can also view the Silver or Gold level criteria.

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

        

 Basics 13/13 ●

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A session-aware control layer that routes coding turns to an appropriate model profile before execution.

    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.

  • Basic project website content


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST succinctly describe what the software does (what problem does it solve?). [description_good]
    This MUST be in language that potential users can understand (e.g., it uses minimal jargon).

    The project uses its GitHub repository as the project website. It provides how to obtain the software (repo and npm package), how to provide feedback (GitHub Issues for bug reports and enhancements), and how to contribute (CONTRIBUTING.md with PR process and contribution requirements).


    Enough for a badge!

    The project website MUST provide information on how to: obtain, provide feedback (as bug reports or enhancements), and contribute to the software. [interact]

    Obtain the software:
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard
    https://www.npmjs.com/package/model-switchboard
    Provide feedback (bugs/enhancements):
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/issues
    Contribute:
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute MUST explain the contribution process (e.g., are pull requests used?) (URL required) [contribution]
    We presume that projects on GitHub use issues and pull requests unless otherwise noted. This information can be short, e.g., stating that the project uses pull requests, an issue tracker, or posts to a mailing list (which one?)

    Projects on GitHub by default use issues and pull requests, as encouraged by documentation such as https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The information on how to contribute SHOULD include the requirements for acceptable contributions (e.g., a reference to any required coding standard). (URL required) [contribution_requirements]

    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


  • FLOSS license


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST be released as FLOSS. [floss_license]
    FLOSS is software released in a way that meets the Open Source Definition or Free Software Definition. Examples of such licenses include the CC0, MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). For our purposes, this means that the license MUST be: The software MAY also be licensed other ways (e.g., "GPLv2 or proprietary" is acceptable).

    The MIT license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that any required license(s) for the software produced by the project be approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). [floss_license_osi]
    The OSI uses a rigorous approval process to determine which licenses are OSS.

    The MIT license is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST post the license(s) of its results in a standard location in their source repository. (URL required) [license_location]
    One convention is posting the license as a top-level file named LICENSE or COPYING, which MAY be followed by an extension such as ".txt" or ".md". An alternative convention is to have a directory named LICENSES containing license file(s); these files are typically named as their SPDX license identifier followed by an appropriate file extension, as described in the REUSE Specification. Note that this criterion is only a requirement on the source repository. You do NOT need to include the license file when generating something from the source code (such as an executable, package, or container). For example, when generating an R package for the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), follow standard CRAN practice: if the license is a standard license, use the standard short license specification (to avoid installing yet another copy of the text) and list the LICENSE file in an exclusion file such as .Rbuildignore. Similarly, when creating a Debian package, you may put a link in the copyright file to the license text in /usr/share/common-licenses, and exclude the license file from the created package (e.g., by deleting the file after calling dh_auto_install). We encourage including machine-readable license information in generated formats where practical.

    Non-trivial license location file in repository: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/LICENSE.


  • Documentation


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide basic documentation for the software produced by the project. [documentation_basics]
    This documentation must be in some media (such as text or video) that includes: how to install it, how to start it, how to use it (possibly with a tutorial using examples), and how to use it securely (e.g., what to do and what not to do) if that is an appropriate topic for the software. The security documentation need not be long. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    Some documentation basics file contents found.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide reference documentation that describes the external interface (both input and output) of the software produced by the project. [documentation_interface]
    The documentation of an external interface explains to an end-user or developer how to use it. This would include its application program interface (API) if the software has one. If it is a library, document the major classes/types and methods/functions that can be called. If it is a web application, define its URL interface (often its REST interface). If it is a command-line interface, document the parameters and options it supports. In many cases it's best if most of this documentation is automatically generated, so that this documentation stays synchronized with the software as it changes, but this isn't required. The project MAY use hypertext links to non-project material as documentation. Documentation MAY be automatically generated (where practical this is often the best way to do so). Documentation of a REST interface may be generated using Swagger/OpenAPI. Code interface documentation MAY be generated using tools such as JSDoc (JavaScript), ESDoc (JavaScript), pydoc (Python), devtools (R), pkgdown (R), and Doxygen (many). Merely having comments in implementation code is not sufficient to satisfy this criterion; there needs to be an easy way to see the information without reading through all the source code. If the project does not produce software, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/docs/CLI-REFERENCE.md


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project sites (website, repository, and download URLs) MUST support HTTPS using TLS. [sites_https]
    This requires that the project home page URL and the version control repository URL begin with "https:", not "http:". You can get free certificates from Let's Encrypt. Projects MAY implement this criterion using (for example) GitHub pages, GitLab pages, or SourceForge project pages. If you support HTTP, we urge you to redirect the HTTP traffic to HTTPS.

    Given only https: URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have one or more mechanisms for discussion (including proposed changes and issues) that are searchable, allow messages and topics to be addressed by URL, enable new people to participate in some of the discussions, and do not require client-side installation of proprietary software. [discussion]
    Examples of acceptable mechanisms include archived mailing list(s), GitHub issue and pull request discussions, Bugzilla, Mantis, and Trac. Asynchronous discussion mechanisms (like IRC) are acceptable if they meet these criteria; make sure there is a URL-addressable archiving mechanism. Proprietary JavaScript, while discouraged, is permitted.

    GitHub supports discussions on issues and pull requests.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/docs/CLI-REFERENCE.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD provide documentation in English and be able to accept bug reports and comments about code in English. [english]
    English is currently the lingua franca of computer technology; supporting English increases the number of different potential developers and reviewers worldwide. A project can meet this criterion even if its core developers' primary language is not English.

    All documentation is available in English.
    Examples: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/LICENSE, https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/docs/CLI-REFERENCE.md, https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST be maintained. [maintained]
    As a minimum, the project should attempt to respond to significant problem and vulnerability reports. A project that is actively pursuing a badge is probably maintained. All projects and people have limited resources, and typical projects must reject some proposed changes, so limited resources and proposal rejections do not by themselves indicate an unmaintained project.

    When a project knows that it will no longer be maintained, it should set this criterion to "Unmet" and use the appropriate mechanism(s) to indicate to others that it is not being maintained. For example, use “DEPRECATED” as the first heading of its README, add “DEPRECATED” near the beginning of its home page, add “DEPRECATED” to the beginning of its code repository project description, add a no-maintenance-intended badge in its README and/or home page, mark it as deprecated in any package repositories (e.g., npm deprecate), and/or use the code repository's marking system to archive it (e.g., GitHub's "archive" setting, GitLab’s "archived" marking, Gerrit's "readonly" status, or SourceForge’s "abandoned" project status). Additional discussion can be found here.

    How this is satisfied:

    Regular recent releases are published, which indicates active upkeep and user-facing updates.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/releases
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md
    Recent commit activity is visible on the default branch, showing the codebase is actively updated.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/commits/main
    CI is configured and running on pushes/PRs, which is a strong maintenance signal (changes are continuously validated).
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/actions/workflows/ci.yml
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/actions
    Security handling is documented and current, with a defined vulnerability-report process.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/SECURITY.md


 Change Control 9/9 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a version-controlled source repository that is publicly readable and has a URL. [repo_public]
    The URL MAY be the same as the project URL. The project MAY use private (non-public) branches in specific cases while the change is not publicly released (e.g., for fixing a vulnerability before it is revealed to the public).

    Repository on GitHub, which provides public git repositories with URLs.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST track what changes were made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [repo_track]

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git can track the changes, who made them, and when they were made.


    Enough for a badge!

    To enable collaborative review, the project's source repository MUST include interim versions for review between releases; it MUST NOT include only final releases. [repo_interim]
    Projects MAY choose to omit specific interim versions from their public source repositories (e.g., ones that fix specific non-public security vulnerabilities, may never be publicly released, or include material that cannot be legally posted and are not in the final release).

    Why this criterion is satisfied:

    The repository uses pull requests with branch-based development, so changes are reviewed in interim form before release tags are created.
    The commit history on main shows many non-release commits and merged PR commits between release commits.
    Releases are generated from already-reviewed source history, not as isolated final-only drops.

    PR list (interim review artifacts): https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
    Main commit history (interim commits between releases): https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/commits/main
    Tags/releases (final outputs derived from reviewed history): https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/releases


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common distributed version control software be used (e.g., git) for the project's source repository. [repo_distributed]
    Git is not specifically required and projects can use centralized version control software (such as subversion) with justification.

    Repository on GitHub, which uses git. git is distributed.


  • Unique version numbering


    Enough for a badge!

    The project results MUST have a unique version identifier for each release intended to be used by users. [version_unique]
    This MAY be met in a variety of ways including a commit IDs (such as git commit id or mercurial changeset id) or a version number (including version numbers that use semantic versioning or date-based schemes like YYYYMMDD).

    The project uses SemVer in package metadata, with a single version value per release.
    Each release is tagged with a unique Git tag in vX.Y.Z format.
    GitHub Releases are created per tag, so each user-facing release has a unique identifier.
    Evidence URLs:

    Version in package metadata: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json
    Unique release tags: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/tags
    User-facing releases: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/releases


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the Semantic Versioning (SemVer) or Calendar Versioning (CalVer) version numbering format be used for releases. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value. [version_semver]
    Projects should generally prefer whatever format is expected by their users, e.g., because it is the normal format used by their ecosystem. Many ecosystems prefer SemVer, and SemVer is generally preferred for application programmer interfaces (APIs) and software development kits (SDKs). CalVer tends to be used by projects that are large, have an unusually large number of independently-developed dependencies, have a constantly-changing scope, or are time-sensitive. It is SUGGESTED that those who use CalVer include a micro level value, because including a micro level supports simultaneously-maintained branches whenever that becomes necessary. Other version numbering formats may be used as version numbers, including git commit IDs or mercurial changeset IDs, as long as they uniquely identify versions. However, some alternatives (such as git commit IDs) can cause problems as release identifiers, because users may not be able to easily determine if they are up-to-date. The version ID format may be unimportant for identifying software releases if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery).

    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects identify each release within their version control system. For example, it is SUGGESTED that those using git identify each release using git tags. [version_tags]

    We use Semantic Versioning style identifiers (major.minor.patch) in releases.
    Our Git tags follow vX.Y.Z.
    The package version tracks the same SemVer format.
    Evidence URLs:
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/tags
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/releases
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json


  • Release notes


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide, in each release, release notes that are a human-readable summary of major changes in that release to help users determine if they should upgrade and what the upgrade impact will be. The release notes MUST NOT be the raw output of a version control log (e.g., the "git log" command results are not release notes). Projects whose results are not intended for reuse in multiple locations (such as the software for a single website or service) AND employ continuous delivery MAY select "N/A". (URL required) [release_notes]
    The release notes MAY be implemented in a variety of ways. Many projects provide them in a file named "NEWS", "CHANGELOG", or "ChangeLog", optionally with extensions such as ".txt", ".md", or ".html". Historically the term "change log" meant a log of every change, but to meet these criteria what is needed is a human-readable summary. The release notes MAY instead be provided by version control system mechanisms such as the GitHub Releases workflow.

    Non-trivial release notes file in repository: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md.


    Enough for a badge!

    The release notes MUST identify every publicly known run-time vulnerability fixed in this release that already had a CVE assignment or similar when the release was created. This criterion may be marked as not applicable (N/A) if users typically cannot practically update the software themselves (e.g., as is often true for kernel updates). This criterion applies only to the project results, not to its dependencies. If there are no release notes or there have been no publicly known vulnerabilities, choose N/A. [release_notes_vulns]
    This criterion helps users determine if a given update will fix a vulnerability that is publicly known, to help users make an informed decision about updating. If users typically cannot practically update the software themselves on their computers, but must instead depend on one or more intermediaries to perform the update (as is often the case for a kernel and low-level software that is intertwined with a kernel), the project may choose "not applicable" (N/A) instead, since this additional information will not be helpful to those users. Similarly, a project may choose N/A if all recipients only run the latest version (e.g., it is the code for a single website or internet service that is constantly updated via continuous delivery). This criterion only applies to the project results, not its dependencies. Listing the vulnerabilities of all transitive dependencies of a project becomes unwieldy as dependencies increase and vary, and is unnecessary since tools that examine and track dependencies can do this in a more scalable way.

    N/A. While the project provides release notes, no releases to date have fixed a publicly known run-time vulnerability in the project itself that had a CVE (or similar identifier) assigned at the time of release. If such a case occurs, we will explicitly list the CVE(s) in the corresponding release notes.

    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/releases


 Reporting 8/8 ●

  • Bug-reporting process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST provide a process for users to submit bug reports (e.g., using an issue tracker or a mailing list). (URL required) [report_process]

    Non-trivial SECURITY[.md] file found file in repository: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/SECURITY.md. [osps_do_02_01]


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD use an issue tracker for tracking individual issues. [report_tracker]

    The project uses GitHub Issues as its issue tracker for individual bug reports and enhancement requests.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST acknowledge a majority of bug reports submitted in the last 2-12 months (inclusive); the response need not include a fix. [report_responses]

    In the applicable 2–12 month window, there were no submitted bug reports in this repository, so there were no unacknowledged bug reports. The project’s issue tracker is public and monitored at the URL provided.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD respond to a majority (>50%) of enhancement requests in the last 2-12 months (inclusive). [enhancement_responses]
    The response MAY be 'no' or a discussion about its merits. The goal is simply that there be some response to some requests, which indicates that the project is still alive. For purposes of this criterion, projects need not count fake requests (e.g., from spammers or automated systems). If a project is no longer making enhancements, please select "unmet" and include the URL that makes this situation clear to users. If a project tends to be overwhelmed by the number of enhancement requests, please select "unmet" and explain.

    In the applicable 2–12 month window, there were no enhancement requests submitted in the issue tracker, so there were no unanswered enhancement requests. The project issue tracker is public and monitored at the URL provided.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a publicly available archive for reports and responses for later searching. (URL required) [report_archive]

    The project uses GitHub Issues as a publicly available, searchable archive of reports and responses, with permanent URLs for each thread.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST publish the process for reporting vulnerabilities on the project site. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_process]
    Projects hosted on GitHub SHOULD consider enabling privately reporting a security vulnerability. Projects on GitLab SHOULD consider using its ability for privately reporting a vulnerability. Projects MAY identify a mailing address on https://PROJECTSITE/security, often in the form security@example.org. This vulnerability reporting process MAY be the same as its bug reporting process. Vulnerability reports MAY always be public, but many projects have a private vulnerability reporting mechanism.

    The project publishes its vulnerability reporting process in SECURITY.md on the project site, including private reporting instructions via GitHub Security Advisories and the disclosure process.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Enough for a badge!

    If private vulnerability reports are supported, the project MUST include how to send the information in a way that is kept private. (URL required) [vulnerability_report_private]
    Examples include a private defect report submitted on the web using HTTPS (TLS) or an email encrypted using OpenPGP. If vulnerability reports are always public (so there are never private vulnerability reports), choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    The project supports private vulnerability reporting and documents how to do so in SECURITY.md, including a direct link to create a private GitHub Security Advisory draft.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/SECURITY.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's initial response time for any vulnerability report received in the last 6 months MUST be less than or equal to 14 days. [vulnerability_report_response]
    If there have been no vulnerabilities reported in the last 6 months, choose "not applicable" (N/A).

    N/A. In the last 6 months, the project has not had publicly recorded vulnerability reports requiring an initial response-time measurement. If reports are received, our policy target is initial acknowledgment within 14 days.
    Evidence URL:
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/security/advisories
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/SECURITY.md


 Quality 13/13 ●

  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    If the software produced by the project requires building for use, the project MUST provide a working build system that can automatically rebuild the software from source code. [build]
    A build system determines what actions need to occur to rebuild the software (and in what order), and then performs those steps. For example, it can invoke a compiler to compile the source code. If an executable is created from source code, it must be possible to modify the project's source code and then generate an updated executable with those modifications. If the software produced by the project depends on external libraries, the build system does not need to build those external libraries. If there is no need to build anything to use the software after its source code is modified, select "not applicable" (N/A).

    N/A. The project does not require a separate build step to use; it is distributed as runnable Node.js source. Users can run it directly after installing dependencies.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/README.md


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that common tools be used for building the software. [build_common_tools]
    For example, Maven, Ant, cmake, the autotools, make, rake (Ruby), or devtools (R).

    N/A. The project does not require a separate build step for use, so build-tool selection is not applicable.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project SHOULD be buildable using only FLOSS tools. [build_floss_tools]

    N/A. The project does not require a separate build step for use; it is distributed as runnable source.


  • Automated test suite


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST use at least one automated test suite that is publicly released as FLOSS (this test suite may be maintained as a separate FLOSS project). The project MUST clearly show or document how to run the test suite(s) (e.g., via a continuous integration (CI) script or via documentation in files such as BUILD.md, README.md, or CONTRIBUTING.md). [test]
    The project MAY use multiple automated test suites (e.g., one that runs quickly, vs. another that is more thorough but requires special equipment). There are many test frameworks and test support systems available, including Selenium (web browser automation), Junit (JVM, Java), RUnit (R), testthat (R).

    The project uses an automated FLOSS test suite in the public repository and documents how to run it (npm test). Tests are also executed automatically in public CI on pushes and pull requests.
    Test command definition: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json
    Public test suite files: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/tree/main/test
    CI workflow running tests: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml
    User-facing test invocation in docs: https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/README.md


    Enough for a badge!

    A test suite SHOULD be invocable in a standard way for that language. [test_invocation]
    For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby).

    The test suite is invocable in the standard Node.js ecosystem way using npm test, as documented in package.json and project documentation.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/README.md


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the test suite cover most (or ideally all) the code branches, input fields, and functionality. [test_most]

    The project maintains broad functional automated tests across core modules (routing, adapters, workflow, CLI, session continuity, and fuzzing), which provides substantial coverage of behavior and inputs. We continuously expand tests as new functionality is added.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/tree/main/test
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that the project implement continuous integration (where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result). [test_continuous_integration]

    The project implements continuous integration using GitHub Actions. On pull requests and pushes to main, CI runs automated checks including the test suite, ensuring new and changed code is continuously validated.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/actions


  • New functionality testing


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a general policy (formal or not) that as major new functionality is added to the software produced by the project, tests of that functionality should be added to an automated test suite. [test_policy]
    As long as a policy is in place, even by word of mouth, that says developers should add tests to the automated test suite for major new functionality, select "Met."

    The project has a documented policy that major new functionality must include corresponding automated tests (and bug fixes should include tests as well). This policy is defined in CONTRIBUTING and enforced through CI test execution.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have evidence that the test_policy for adding tests has been adhered to in the most recent major changes to the software produced by the project. [tests_are_added]
    Major functionality would typically be mentioned in the release notes. Perfection is not required, merely evidence that tests are typically being added in practice to the automated test suite when new major functionality is added to the software produced by the project.

    Recent major feature PRs include test additions in the same change set. For example, PR #24 (multi-surface advisory routing) and PR #19 (explainability and attribution) both added new source files alongside corresponding tests, demonstrating adherence to the test policy.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/pull/24/files
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/pull/19/files


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that this policy on adding tests (see test_policy) be documented in the instructions for change proposals. [tests_documented_added]
    However, even an informal rule is acceptable as long as the tests are being added in practice.

    The test policy is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md under 'Test Policy', which is the instructions contributors follow when proposing changes via pull requests.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#test-policy


  • Warning flags


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST enable one or more compiler warning flags, a "safe" language mode, or use a separate "linter" tool to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can implement this criterion in the selected language. [warnings]
    Examples of compiler warning flags include gcc/clang "-Wall". Examples of a "safe" language mode include JavaScript "use strict" and perl5's "use warnings". A separate "linter" tool is simply a tool that examines the source code to look for code quality errors or common simple mistakes. These are typically enabled within the source code or build instructions.

    The project uses ESLint (a FLOSS linter) with eslint-plugin-security to check for code quality errors and common security vulnerabilities. Linting runs automatically in CI on every push and pull request via npm run lint.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/eslint.config.js
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/package.json


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST address warnings. [warnings_fixed]
    These are the warnings identified by the implementation of the warnings criterion. The project should fix warnings or mark them in the source code as false positives. Ideally there would be no warnings, but a project MAY accept some warnings (typically less than 1 warning per 100 lines or less than 10 warnings).

    All ESLint warnings have been addressed. Dynamic filesystem path warnings (detect-non-literal-fs-filename) are suppressed with a scoped config override and documented justification (paths are centrally managed and validated at the application boundary). The one no-process-exit occurrence is suppressed inline with justification at the top-level CLI entry point.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/eslint.config.js
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/actions (lint step shows clean)


    Enough for a badge!

    It is SUGGESTED that projects be maximally strict with warnings in the software produced by the project, where practical. [warnings_strict]
    Some warnings cannot be effectively enabled on some projects. What is needed is evidence that the project is striving to enable warning flags where it can, so that errors are detected early.

    The project is maximally strict with ESLint warnings where practical. Security rules are enabled at error level, all real warnings have been addressed, and the two false-positive rule suppressions are scoped narrowly with documented justification. The lint run currently produces zero warnings.
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/blob/main/eslint.config.js
    https://github.com/hannasdev/model-switchboard/actions


 Security 16/16 ●

 Analysis 8/8 ●


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 Hanna and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Hanna.
Entry created on 2026-05-12 16:00:02 UTC, last updated on 2026-05-12 19:34:38 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-05-12 18:40:46 UTC.