boost

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 14275 is baseline-2 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/14275/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 3 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.

    Package manager for AI coding skills — search, install, and sync SKILL.md skills across Claude Code, Windsurf, and Cursor

    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 19/21 ●

  • 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.

    Least privilege is the default and it is audited. Every workflow declares a permissions: block; ci.yml and publish.yml default to contents: read at workflow level and grant write scopes only on the single job that needs them (publish.yml's guard job holds contents: read while the release job holds the write scopes and the PyPI Trusted-Publishing OIDC). zizmor's excessive-permissions audit runs as a required check on every pull request, so a job granted more than it needs fails the build rather than merging. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/.github/workflows/publish.yml


    Enough for a badge!

    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.

    No workflow uses pull_request_target, so a fork's pull request runs with a read-only token and no secret access. Secrets are bound at job level and never interpolated into a run: block. Three checks enforce this rather than convention: zizmor (template-injection and dangerous-triggers audits, with every suppression documented by reason in .github/zizmor.yml), actionlint, and shellcheck — which actionlint shells out to, and which is pinned in the lint toolchain precisely because actionlint silently skips every run: block when shellcheck is absent and still exits 0. Documented in SECURITY.md: https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SECURITY.md#secrets-and-credentials


    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.

    Versions come from setuptools-scm reading git tags, so there is no hand-maintained version constant to fall out of sync and a version is unique by construction. 'boost --version' reports it. [version_unique]


    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.

    SECURITY.md § Secrets and credentials is the policy, covering storage, access and rotation: releases use no stored token (PyPI Trusted Publishing mints a short-lived OIDC identity, so there is nothing to rotate or steal); every secret that does exist is optional and every job reading one skips itself when absent; secrets never reach untrusted code; an optional token is rotated on suspicion of exposure or when the holder's access is removed, revoked at the issuing service before being replaced or deleted; and gitleaks fails the build on a committed secret. MAINTAINERS.md carries the table of who holds which credential. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SECURITY.md#secrets-and-credentials


    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.

    Every release is signed with SLSA build provenance at build time. publish.yml runs actions/attest-build-provenance over dist/* after 'twine check' and before the PyPI upload, so the exact bytes published are the bytes signed, and the attestation records which workflow built which artifact from which commit. Upload to PyPI additionally uses Trusted Publishing (a short-lived OIDC identity, no stored token). A CycloneDX SBOM is generated per released wheel and attached to the GitHub release. Verification instructions: https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/verifying-releases.md [osps_br_06_01] [signed_releases]


    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.

    Every release is signed with SLSA build provenance at build time. publish.yml runs actions/attest-build-provenance over dist/* after 'twine check' and before the PyPI upload, so the exact bytes published are the bytes signed, and the attestation records which workflow built which artifact from which commit. Upload to PyPI additionally uses Trusted Publishing (a short-lived OIDC identity, no stored token). A CycloneDX SBOM is generated per released wheel and attached to the GitHub release. Verification instructions: https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/verifying-releases.md [osps_br_06_01] [signed_releases]


    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.

    SUPPORT.md § What is supported states the scope and duration plainly: only the latest release is supported, there are no backport branches and no long-term-support line, and the supported answer for an older version is to upgrade. It also names the supported environments (operating systems and Python versions), which are exactly what CI runs on every pull request, and states that Python 3.11 and earlier are not supported. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SUPPORT.md#what-is-supported


    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.

    SUPPORT.md § When a version stops receiving security updates answers it in one line: the moment a newer release exists. boost cuts a release on every merge to main, so maintaining an older supported line would mean supporting hundreds of versions, and the document says so rather than implying a support window it does not offer. If a release fixes a publicly known vulnerability the release notes name it. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SUPPORT.md#when-a-version-stops-receiving-security-updates


    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.

    MAINTAINERS.md § Becoming a maintainer is the published policy, and step 2 is the criterion: 'Review before the grant — the lead maintainer reviews that history and proposes the change in a public issue, naming the scope of access being granted and why. Existing maintainers may object there.' It also requires a track record first, least privilege at the grant (write access is a separate decision from repository administration, which is separate again from anything touching the release path), and that the file is updated in the same change — an access grant not recorded there has not happened. The same review applies when an existing maintainer is given more access. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/MAINTAINERS.md#becoming-a-maintainer


    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.

    Every release carries a CycloneDX SBOM, generated at build time by .github/workflows/sbom.yml and attached to the GitHub Release as boost-sbom.cdx.json. Verified rather than assumed: the three most recent releases (v1.2.31, v1.2.30, v1.2.29) each carry that asset. Worth stating because this control was inert for 253 releases — it was triggered by release: [published], an event created with GITHUB_TOKEN, which never chains to another workflow; it now runs on workflow_run after the release workflow. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/releases


    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.

    boost is a single source-code repository. A release comprises one repository and has no subprojects, so there is no second codebase whose security requirements could be weaker. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost


    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.

    Four tiers: tests/unit and tests/functional (pytest; the functional suite drives the real CLI in-process), tests/smoke.sh (170 end-to-end checks through the ./boost shim), and a Gherkin BDD suite of 11 features / 47 scenarios. [test]


    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 policy is mandated by automation rather than by convention, which is the stronger form. CONTRIBUTING.md states that behaviour changes need tests and that anything under boost_cli/core is mutation-tested; the changed-line coverage gate and the mutation gate then enforce it as required status checks, so a change adding major functionality without tests cannot be merged into main even by the maintainer - main is protected and takes changes only through a pull request that has passed the full gate. [test_policy_mandated]


    Not 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.

    boost has one maintainer (MAINTAINERS.md states this plainly rather than implying a committee), so there is no non-author human who could approve a change. The main branch ruleset requires a pull request and requires 21 named status checks to pass before merging, but it cannot require an approval that nobody is available to give. This is the same single fact behind the OpenSSF passing-level two_person_review, bus_factor and contributors_unassociated criteria, all also answered Unmet. It is a recruiting problem rather than a configuration one, and configuring a second account to supply the approval would defeat the criterion rather than satisfy it. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/code-review.md


    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.

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/security-design.md is that assessment. It identifies the most likely and impactful problems for a CLI that clones third-party repositories and writes files into the directories an AI agent reads - path traversal via attacker-controlled frontmatter, command injection through skill and tap names, archive extraction escapes, link following, untrusted deserialization, supply-chain and CI-action compromise - and pairs each with the mitigation in the codebase. It also states the residual risks plainly, including the most important one: boost can give provenance, integrity and a diff, but cannot vet what a skill instructs an agent to do. [osps_sa_03_01] [assurance_case]


    Not 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.

    boost does not publish a VEX feed. Non-exploitable findings are triaged and suppressed with a recorded reason in the tool that raised them — CodeQL dismissals carry a written justification, .github/zizmor.yml documents every suppression by reason, and the gitleaks allowlist covers only boost's own synthetic scanner test fixtures — but that is not a machine-readable VEX document a consumer could ingest, and answering Met on the strength of it would overstate what exists.


    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.

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/dependencies.md documents the monitoring and the thresholds. Dependabot proposes upgrades; pip-audit fails the build when a resolved dependency matches a known OSV or PyPI advisory and also runs on a weekly schedule so a newly published advisory against unchanged code is still caught; OSV-Scanner runs diffed against the base branch and fails on what a pull request adds; a licence gate fails on a licence outside the allowed set; and a CycloneDX SBOM is generated per released wheel. pip-audit and osv-scan are both required checks. The runtime has no third-party dependency to monitor, which is the strongest form of this. [dependency_monitoring]


    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.

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/dependencies.md documents the monitoring and the thresholds. Dependabot proposes upgrades; pip-audit fails the build when a resolved dependency matches a known OSV or PyPI advisory and also runs on a weekly schedule so a newly published advisory against unchanged code is still caught; OSV-Scanner runs diffed against the base branch and fails on what a pull request adds; a licence gate fails on a licence outside the allowed set; and a CycloneDX SBOM is generated per released wheel. pip-audit and osv-scan are both required checks. The runtime has no third-party dependency to monitor, which is the strongest form of this. [dependency_monitoring]


    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.

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/docs/dependencies.md documents the monitoring and the thresholds. Dependabot proposes upgrades; pip-audit fails the build when a resolved dependency matches a known OSV or PyPI advisory and also runs on a weekly schedule so a newly published advisory against unchanged code is still caught; OSV-Scanner runs diffed against the base branch and fails on what a pull request adds; a licence gate fails on a licence outside the allowed set; and a CycloneDX SBOM is generated per released wheel. pip-audit and osv-scan are both required checks. The runtime has no third-party dependency to monitor, which is the strongest form of this. [dependency_monitoring]


    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.

    Findings are fixed, or dismissed with a written proof of why they are false positives - never dismissed for convenience. The project keeps that discipline recorded publicly on its roadmap, including the explicit rule that supply-chain posture metrics must not be filed as false positives just to clear the inbox. [static_analysis_fixed]


    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.

    Several tools, all required checks, all run before every release - which is every merge to main. CodeQL does semantic analysis on push, on pull request and weekly (https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml). ruff's S/flake8-bandit family is Python SAST covering shell=True, tempfile.mktemp, unsafe YAML loading and weak hashing. mypy and pyright are two independent type checkers, the second adding None-flow and narrowing analysis over core/. zizmor audits the GitHub Actions workflows for excessive permissions and unpinned action refs. import-linter enforces the architectural layering. SonarCloud is additionally wired up as an optional, non-blocking dashboard. [static_analysis]



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 Jonathan Reyes and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Jonathan Reyes.
Entry created on 2026-08-28 13:39:22 UTC, last updated on 2026-08-29 02:20:11 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-08-28 14:27:12 UTC.