AgentsKit Code Review

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 13866 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/13866/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13866)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13866"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13866/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 1 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.

    Provider-agnostic, low-noise AI code review for local development and GitHub Actions. It runs seven focused review lenses and adversarially verifies findings using the model, local runtime, or gateway the user already controls.

    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 24/24 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

    When a user attempts to read or modify a sensitive resource in the project's authoritative repository, the system MUST require the user to complete a multi-factor authentication process. [OSPS-AC-01.01]
    Enforce multi-factor authentication for the project's version control system, requiring collaborators to provide a second form of authentication when accessing sensitive data or modifying repository settings. Passkeys are acceptable for this control.

    The AgentsKit GitHub organization enforces two-factor authentication for organization members. This was verified through the organization settings API before preparing this assessment.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a new collaborator is added, the version control system MUST require manual permission assignment, or restrict the collaborator permissions to the lowest available privileges by default. [OSPS-AC-02.01]
    Most public version control systems are configured in this manner. Ensure the project's version control system always assigns the lowest available permissions to collaborators by default when added, granting additional permissions only when necessary.

    AgentsKit organization members receive read-only repository access by default. Higher collaborator or repository permissions require explicit assignment by an organization owner, and the repository currently has no direct outside collaborators.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a direct commit is attempted on the project's primary branch, an enforcement mechanism MUST prevent the change from being applied. [OSPS-AC-03.01]
    If the VCS is centralized, set branch protection on the primary branch in the project's VCS. Alternatively, use a decentralized approach, like the Linux kernel's, where changes are first proposed in another repository, and merging changes into the primary repository requires a specific separate act.

    The active GitHub ruleset named Protect main requires every change to refs/heads/main to pass through a pull request and the configured status checks. Direct commits are blocked and there are no bypass actors.


    Enough for a badge!

    When an attempt is made to delete the project's primary branch, the version control system MUST treat this as a sensitive activity and require explicit confirmation of intent. [OSPS-AC-03.02]
    Set branch protection on the primary branch in the project's version control system to prevent deletion.

    The active Protect main ruleset applies the deletion restriction to refs/heads/main and has no bypass actors.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a CI/CD pipeline operates on untrusted metadata, those parameters MUST be sanitized and validated prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.01]
    CI/CD pipelines should sanitize (quote, escape or exit on expected values) all metadata inputs which correspond to untrusted sources. This includes data such as branch names, commit messages, tags, pull request titles, and author information.

    Pull-request workflows do not interpolate attacker-controlled event text into shell commands. Composite Action inputs are passed through environment variables, and repository and pull-request identifiers are generated by GitHub. The OpenSSF Dangerous-Workflow check reports 10/10.


    Enough for a badge!

    When a CI/CD pipeline operates on untrusted code snapshots, it MUST prevent access to privileged CI/CD credentials and assets. [OSPS-BR-01.03]
    CI/CD pipelines should isolate untrusted code snapshots from privileged credentials and assets. In particular, projects should be careful to ensure that workflows which build or execute code prior to review by a collaborator do not have access to CI/CD credentials.

    Untrusted contributions run through pull_request workflows, not pull_request_target. GitHub withholds repository secrets from fork pull requests, workflow checkout does not persist credentials, and the repository default GITHUB_TOKEN permission is read-only.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project lists a URI as an official project channel, that URI MUST be exclusively delivered using encrypted channels. [OSPS-BR-03.01]
    Configure the project's websites and version control systems to use encrypted channels such as SSH or HTTPS for data transmission. Ensure all tools and domains referenced in project documentation can only be accessed via encrypted channels.

    Official project, documentation, issue, package, Marketplace, and ecosystem channels listed by the project use HTTPS. The HTTP localhost URL in an Ollama example is a user-controlled loopback endpoint, not an official project channel.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project lists a URI as an official distribution channel, that channel MUST be protected from adversary-in-the-middle attacks using cryptographically authenticated channels. [OSPS-BR-03.02]
    Artifacts distributed by the project should be distributed through channels which ensure integrity and authenticity. Use of HTTPS for downloads, signed releases, or distribution through trusted package managers are all acceptable methods to protect against adversary-in-the-middle attacks.

    The GitHub release, GitHub Action source, and npm package are distributed over authenticated HTTPS channels.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST prevent the unintentional storage of unencrypted sensitive data, such as secrets and credentials, in the version control system. [OSPS-BR-07.01]
    Configure .gitignore or equivalent to exclude files that may contain sensitive information. Use pre-commit hooks and automated scanning tools to detect and prevent the inclusion of sensitive data in commits.

    GitHub secret scanning and push protection are enabled for the repository. The contribution and security policies also prohibit committing API keys, tokens, secrets, or private source.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include user guides for all basic functionality. [OSPS-DO-01.01]
    Create user guides or documentation for all basic functionality of the project, explaining how to install, configure, and use the project's features. If there are any known dangerous or destructive actions available, include highly-visible warnings.

    The README documents installation-free execution, supported providers, credentials, CLI options, GitHub Action setup, reporting modes, cost and privacy, compatibility, and operational guidance for the released functionality.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a guide for reporting defects. [OSPS-DO-02.01]
    It is recommended that projects use their VCS default issue tracker. If an external source is used, ensure that the project documentation and contributing guide clearly and visibly explain how to use the reporting system. It is recommended that project documentation also sets expectations for how defects will be triaged and resolved.

    The package metadata points users to the public GitHub issue tracker, the contribution guide explains when to open an issue, and the security policy separates private vulnerability reports from public defects.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project MUST have one or more mechanisms for public discussions about proposed changes and usage obstacles. [OSPS-GV-02.01]
    Establish one or more mechanisms for public discussions within the project, such as mailing lists, instant messaging, or issue trackers, to facilitate open communication and feedback.

    Public GitHub issues and pull requests are the documented mechanisms for discussing proposed changes, bugs, feature requests, and usage obstacles, except for vulnerabilities or private data.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST include an explanation of the contribution process. [OSPS-GV-03.01]
    Create a CONTRIBUTING.md or CONTRIBUTING/ directory to outline the contribution process including the steps for submitting changes, and engaging with the project maintainers.

    CONTRIBUTING.md explains how to fork, branch, install dependencies, make focused changes, run verification, open issues, and submit pull requests.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the source code MUST meet the OSI Open Source Definition or the FSF Free Software Definition. [OSPS-LE-02.01]
    Add a LICENSE file to the project's repo with a license that is an approved license by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), or a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Examples of such licenses include the MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). Releasing to the public domain meets this control if there are no other encumbrances such as patents.

    The source repository is licensed under the OSI-approved MIT License.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the released software assets MUST meet the OSI Open Source Definition or the FSF Free Software Definition. [OSPS-LE-02.02]
    If a different license is included with released software assets, ensure it is an approved license by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), or a free license as approved by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Examples of such licenses include the MIT, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause revised, Apache 2.0, Lesser GNU General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL). Note that the license for the released software assets may be different than the source code.

    Released software assets declare the OSI-approved MIT License in package metadata and include the repository license in the npm package payload.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the source code MUST be maintained in the corresponding repository's LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory. [OSPS-LE-03.01]
    Include the project's source code license in the project's LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory to provide visibility and clarity on the licensing terms. The filename MAY have an extension. If the project has multiple repositories, ensure that each repository includes the license file.

    The authoritative repository contains a root LICENSE file with the complete MIT License text.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the license for the released software assets MUST be included in the released source code, or in a LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory alongside the corresponding release assets. [OSPS-LE-03.02]
    Include the project's released software assets license in the released source code, or in a LICENSE file, COPYING file, or LICENSE/ directory alongside the corresponding release assets to provide visibility and clarity on the licensing terms. The filename MAY have an extension. If the project has multiple repositories, ensure that each repository includes the license file.

    The npm package file list explicitly includes LICENSE alongside the released source and compiled assets.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project's source code repository MUST be publicly readable at a static URL. [OSPS-QA-01.01]
    Use a common VCS such as GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket. Ensure the repository is publicly readable. Avoid duplication or mirroring of repositories unless highly visible documentation clarifies the primary source. Avoid frequent changes to the repository that would impact the repository URL. Ensure the repository is public.

    The authoritative source repository is publicly readable at a stable HTTPS URL.


    Enough for a badge!

    The version control system MUST contain a publicly readable record of all changes made, who made the changes, and when the changes were made. [OSPS-QA-01.02]
    Use a common VCS such as GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket to maintain a publicly readable commit history. Avoid squashing or rewriting commits in a way that would obscure the author of any commits.

    The public Git history records every committed change, its author, and timestamp.


    Enough for a badge!

    When the package management system supports it, the source code repository MUST contain a dependency list that accounts for the direct language dependencies. [OSPS-QA-02.01]
    This may take the form of a package manager or language dependency file that enumerates all direct dependencies such as package.json, Gemfile, or go.mod.

    All direct JavaScript dependencies are declared in package.json and exact transitive resolutions are committed in package-lock.json.


    Enough for a badge!

    Projects with multiple repositories MUST document a list of codebases that are part of the project. [OSPS-QA-04.01]
    Document any additional subproject code repositories produced by the project and compiled into a release. This documentation should include the status and intent of the respective codebase.

    Not applicable to this assessment scope: AgentsKit Code Review is developed and released from one authoritative repository. Other AgentsKit-io repositories are independently versioned ecosystem projects, not additional codebases of this project.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the version control system MUST NOT contain generated executable artifacts. [OSPS-QA-05.01]
    Remove generated executable artifacts in the project's version control system. It is recommended that any scenario where a generated executable artifact appears critical to a process such as testing, it should be instead be generated at build time or stored separately and fetched during a specific well-documented pipeline step.

    Generated executable build outputs are not committed to version control; they are produced during build, test, package, or release operations. The OpenSSF Binary-Artifacts check reports 10/10.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the version control system MUST NOT contain unreviewable binary artifacts. [OSPS-QA-05.02]
    Do not add any unreviewable binary artifacts to the project's version control system. This includes executable application binaries, library files, and similar artifacts. It does not include assets such as graphical images, sound or music files, and similar content typically stored in a binary format.

    The repository contains source and reviewable text or SVG assets, with no opaque binary artifacts. The OpenSSF Binary-Artifacts check reports 10/10.


    Enough for a badge!

    While active, the project documentation MUST contain security contacts. [OSPS-VM-02.01]
    Create a security.md (or similarly-named) file that contains security contacts for the project.

    The public security policy identifies the GitHub private vulnerability-reporting channel as the security contact, requests the information needed for triage, defines a 14-day acknowledgement target, and explains supported versions and coordinated remediation.



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 Emerson Braun and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Emerson Braun.
Entry created on 2026-07-29 13:09:33 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-29 13:11:02 UTC.