commitment-issues

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 13528 is baseline-1 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/13528/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 2 criteria. These are criteria version v2026.02.19.

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

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    For developers who overthink every commit. Advisory-first pre-commit and pre-push checks for JavaScript and TypeScript projects using Husky, lint-staged, ESLint, and Prettier. Advisory by default: commitment-issues reports issues without discarding unstaged work, rewriting already-pushed history, or blocking pushes.

    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 16/19 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a CI/CD task is executed with no permissions specified, the CI/CD system MUST default the task's permissions to the lowest permissions granted in the pipeline. [OSPS-AC-04.01]
    Configure the project's settings to assign the lowest available permissions to new pipelines by default, granting additional permissions only when necessary for specific tasks.

    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST be assigned a unique version identifier. [OSPS-BR-02.01]
    Assign a unique version identifier to each release produced by the project, following a consistent naming convention or numbering scheme. Examples include SemVer, CalVer, or git commit id.

    Each release intended for users has a unique semantic version identifier in package.json, such as 3.0.1. The release workflow is triggered by version tags matching v* and verifies that the Git tag matches the package.json version before publishing. This ensures user-facing releases are uniquely identified.

    https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json [version_unique]


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST contain a descriptive log of functional and security modifications. [OSPS-BR-04.01]
    Ensure that all releases include a descriptive change log. It is recommended to ensure that the change log is human-readable and includes details beyond commit messages, such as descriptions of the security impact or relevance to different use cases. To ensure machine readability, place the content under a markdown header such as "## Changelog".

    Non-trivial release notes file in repository: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md. [release_notes]


    Enough for a badge!

    When a build and release pipeline ingests dependencies, it MUST use standardized tooling where available. [OSPS-BR-05.01]
    Use a common tooling for your ecosystem, such as package managers or dependency management tools to ingest dependencies at build time. This may include using a dependency file, lock file, or manifest to specify the required dependencies, which are then pulled in by the build system.

    The project lists external dependencies in computer-processable npm metadata. package.json declares runtime dependencies, development dependencies, peer dependencies, and the supported Node engine, while package-lock.json records resolved dependency versions, integrity hashes, licenses, and transitive dependency metadata. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package-lock.json. [external_dependencies]


    Enough for a badge!

    When an official release is created, that release MUST be signed or accounted for in a signed manifest including each asset's cryptographic hashes. [OSPS-BR-06.01]
    Sign all released software assets at build time with a cryptographic signature or attestations, such as GPG or PGP signature, Sigstore signatures, SLSA provenance, or SLSA VSAs. Include the cryptographic hashes of each asset in a signed manifest or metadata file.

    Already publishing with npm publish --provenance, npm generates a Sigstore attestation for the published package. If GitHub Release assets are also published, they should either be signed or accompanied by a signed manifest containing their hashes.


    Not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a description of how the project selects, obtains, and tracks its dependencies. [OSPS-DO-06.01]
    It is recommended to publish this information alongside the project's technical & design documentation on a publicly viewable resource such as the source code repository, project website, or other channel.

    No / In progress.

    The project uses the standard npm ecosystem for dependency management, including package.json, package-lock.json, and npm ci. However, the project documentation does not yet include a dedicated description of how dependencies are selected, obtained, and tracked.

    To satisfy this requirement, the project will add dependency-management documentation describing:

    • how dependencies are selected;
    • how dependencies are obtained;
    • how dependency versions are locked and tracked;
    • how dependency updates are reviewed;
    • how security advisories and vulnerability fixes are handled.

    Enough for a badge!

    The project documentation MUST include instructions on how to build the software, including required libraries, frameworks, SDKs, and dependencies. [OSPS-DO-07.01]
    It is recommended to publish this information alongside the project's contributor documentation, such as in CONTRIBUTING.md or other developer task documentation. This may also be documented using Makefile targets or other automation scripts.

    The project provides a quick, common development setup using git and npm. Potential developers can fork and clone the repository, run npm install, then verify the development/test environment with npm test, npm run lint, and npm run format:check. The contributing guide also documents how to run the full test suite and individual test files. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#getting-started. [installation_development_quick]


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a list of project members with access to sensitive resources. [OSPS-GV-01.01]
    Document project participants and their roles through such artifacts as members.md, governance.md, maintainers.md, or similar file within the source code repository of the project. This may be as simple as including names or account handles in a list of maintainers, or more complex depending on the project's governance.

    The project maintains documentation identifying the individuals with access to sensitive project resources, including repository administration, release publishing, package publishing, security settings, and signing credentials. This documentation is kept up to date while the project is active.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include descriptions of the roles and responsibilities for members of the project. [OSPS-GV-01.02]
    Document project participants and their roles through such artifacts as members.md, governance.md, maintainers.md, or similar file within the source code repository of the project.

    The project documentation defines the roles and responsibilities for each project member. This includes responsibilities for project governance, reviewing contributions, approving and publishing releases, responding to security reports, maintaining project documentation, managing CI/CD and repository settings, and maintaining dependencies. The documentation is kept current as project membership changes.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a guide for code contributors that includes requirements for acceptable contributions. [OSPS-GV-03.02]
    Extend the CONTRIBUTING.md or CONTRIBUTING/ contents in the project documentation to outline the requirements for acceptable contributions, including coding standards, testing requirements, and submission guidelines for code contributors. It is recommended that this guide is the source of truth for both contributors and approvers.

    The contributing guide documents requirements for acceptable contributions. Pull requests should include tests for behavior changes and regression tests for bug fixes, stay focused to one logical change, pass npm test, npm run lint, and npm run format:check, update the changelog and documentation for user-visible changes, and follow the project's advisory-first design philosophy. The guide also documents the coding style: Prettier for formatting, ESLint flat config for linting, small composable functions, clear names, and comments only where intent is non-obvious.

    https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-requirements [contribution_requirements]


    Not enough for a badge.

    While active, the version control system MUST require all code contributors to assert that they are legally authorized to make the associated contributions on every commit. [OSPS-LE-01.01]
    Include a DCO in the project's repository, requiring code contributors to assert that they are legally authorized to commit the associated contributions on every commit. Use a status check to ensure the assertion is made. A CLA also satisfies this requirement. Some version control systems, such as GitHub, may include this in the platform terms of service.

    The project currently states that contributions are licensed under the MIT License, but it does not yet document a DCO, CLA, Signed-off-by requirement, or equivalent contributor authorization mechanism. Current partial contribution/legal language is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#opening-a-pull-request. [dco]


    Enough for a badge!

    When a commit is made to the primary branch, any automated status checks for commits MUST pass or be manually bypassed. [OSPS-QA-03.01]
    Configure the project's version control system to require that all automated status checks pass or require manual acknowledgement before a commit can be merged into the primary branch. It is recommended that any optional status checks are NOT configured as a pass or fail requirement that approvers may be tempted to bypass.

    The project applies an automated test suite on each check-in to the shared repository through GitHub Actions. The CI workflow runs on pushes to main and pull requests, and it reports success or failure for linting, formatting, automated tests, package lifecycle smoke tests, coverage, and package-manager smoke tests. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml. [automated_integration_testing]


    Enough for a badge!

    Prior to a commit being accepted, the project's CI/CD pipelines MUST run at least one automated test suite to ensure the changes meet expectations. [OSPS-QA-06.01]
    Automated tests should be run prior to every merge into the primary branch. The test suite should be run in a CI/CD pipeline and the results should be visible to all contributors. The test suite should be run in a consistent environment and should be run in a way that allows contributors to run the tests locally. Examples of test suites include unit tests, integration tests, and end-to-end tests.

    The project applies an automated test suite on each check-in to the shared repository through GitHub Actions. The CI workflow runs on pushes to main and pull requests, and it reports success or failure for linting, formatting, automated tests, package lifecycle smoke tests, coverage, and package-manager smoke tests. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml. [automated_integration_testing]


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include design documentation demonstrating all actions and actors within the system. [OSPS-SA-01.01]
    Include designs in the project documentation that explains the actions and actors. Actors include any subsystem or entity that can influence another segment in the system. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    The project documents its high-level architecture and public interface through the contributing guide and external interface reference. The contributing guide describes the project layout, including entry-point scripts, shared helper modules, tests, docs, and CI workflows. The external interface reference documents CLI commands, init-added scripts, Git hook entrypoints, configuration keys/defaults, output behavior, and exit behavior. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#project-layout and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/docs/external-interface.md [documentation_architecture]


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include descriptions of all external software interfaces of the released software assets. [OSPS-SA-02.01]
    Document all software interfaces (APIs) of the released software assets, explaining how users can interact with the software and what data is expected or produced. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    [documentation_interface]


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project MUST perform a security assessment to understand the most likely and impactful potential security problems that could occur within the software. [OSPS-SA-03.01]
    Performing a security assessment informs both project members as well as downstream consumers that the project understands what problems could arise within the software. Understanding what threats could be realized helps the project manage and address risk. This information is useful to downstream consumers to demonstrate the security acumen and practices of the project. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    The project performed a documented security review on 2026-07-08. The review considered the security boundary: commitment-issues runs locally in user repositories, shells out to local tools such as ESLint, Prettier, and the configured test runner, reads local Git state/files, does not expose a network service, and does not transmit repository content. The review covered CLI entrypoints, shared helpers, Git hook wiring, pre-commit/pre-push execution paths, and release/CI workflows. [security_review]


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy for coordinated vulnerability disclosure (CVD), with a clear timeframe for response. [OSPS-VM-01.01]
    Create a SECURITY.md file at the root of the directory, outlining the project's policy for coordinated vulnerability disclosure. Include a method for reporting vulnerabilities. Set expectations for how the project will respond and address reported issues.

    The project publishes its vulnerability reporting process in SECURITY.md: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/SECURITY.md. The policy tells users how to report vulnerabilities privately through GitHub Security Advisories, asks reporters not to open public issues for suspected vulnerabilities, and explains what details to include in a report. [vulnerability_report_process]


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST provide a means for private vulnerability reporting directly to the security contacts within the project. [OSPS-VM-03.01]
    Provide a means for security researchers to report vulnerabilities privately to the project. This may be a dedicated email address, a web form, VCS specialized tools, email addresses for security contacts, or other methods.

    The project supports private vulnerability reports and documents how to send them privately in SECURITY.md: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/SECURITY.md. The policy instructs reporters to use GitHub's private vulnerability reporting / Security Advisories flow and explicitly says not to open a public issue for suspected vulnerabilities. [vulnerability_report_private]


    Not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project documentation MUST publicly publish data about discovered vulnerabilities. [OSPS-VM-04.01]
    Provide information about known vulnerabilities in a predictable public channel, such as a CVE entry, blog post, or other medium. To the degree possible, this information should include affected version(s), how a consumer can determine if they are vulnerable, and instructions for mitigation or remediation.

    To satisfy this requirement, the project will maintain a public vulnerability history (for example, docs/vulnerability-history.md or GitHub Security Advisories) documenting all disclosed vulnerabilities. If no vulnerabilities have been discovered, the documentation will explicitly state that no publicly disclosed vulnerabilities have been reported to date and will be updated as future disclosures occur.



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 RoryGlenn and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: RoryGlenn.
Entry created on 2026-07-08 02:38:47 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-09 21:04:40 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-07-09 17:43:22 UTC.