bookstack-mcp

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 12116 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/12116/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12116)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12116"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/12116/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.

    BookStack stores your team's knowledge — but AI assistants can't access it without an integration. BookStack MCP Server bridges that gap, connecting AI assistants (Claude Desktop, LibreChat, and any MCP-compatible client) directly to your BookStack instance so they can search, read, and manage your documentation through natural language.

    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


    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 README opens with a problem-statement paragraph: "BookStack stores your team's knowledge — but AI assistants can't access it without an integration. BookStack MCP Server bridges that gap, connecting AI assistants (Claude Desktop, LibreChat, and any MCP-compatible client) directly to your BookStack instance so they can search, read, and manage your documentation through natural language."
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp#bookstack-mcp-server



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

    The README "Obtaining the software" section covers Docker pull, npx, and source install. The "Feedback and contributing" section links to GitHub Issues for bug reports and feature requests, SECURITY.md for vulnerabilities, and CONTRIBUTING.md for code/docs contributions.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp#feedback-and-contributing



    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?)

    CONTRIBUTING.md describes the full process: fork the repo, create a branch from main, make changes, ensure type-check/build/tests pass, sign off all commits (DCO), and open a pull request against main. The DCO CI check is explained and enforced automatically.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#making-changes



    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]

    CONTRIBUTING.md has a "Requirements for acceptable contributions" section listing all merge gates: DCO sign-off, type-check, build, tests, no new HIGH/CRITICAL vulnerabilities (npm audit), and code style conventions (TypeScript strict mode, native fetch, Zod schemas).
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#requirements-for-acceptable-contributions


  • FLOSS license


    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 project is released under the MIT License, a permissive free and open-source software license. The LICENSE file is at the repository root.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE



    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 project uses the MIT License (SPDX: MIT), which is approved by the Open Source Initiative. https://opensource.org/license/mit
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE



    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.

    The LICENSE file is at the root of the repository. The README License section links directly to it and states the SPDX identifier (MIT) and OSI approval.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE


  • Documentation


    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).

    The project provides comprehensive documentation covering installation, configuration, deployment, usage, contributing guidelines, and security policy:

    README with quick start, environment variables, deployment options (Docker, npm, local), and troubleshooting
    CONTRIBUTING.md with contribution process, DCO requirements, and code style
    SECURITY.md with threat model, vulnerability reporting, and security policies
    docs/ folder with architecture, CI/CD pipeline, and integration guides
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/README.md



    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).

    docs/reference.md documents all 45 MCP tools exposed by the server. For each tool it provides: a description of what the tool does, a parameter table listing every input (name, type, required/optional, constraints, description), and a description of the output format including all fields returned. Common patterns (pagination, sorting, filters, and response enhancement fields) are documented once in a shared section at the top.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/docs/reference.md


  • Other


    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.

    All project URLs are served over HTTPS:

    Repository: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp
    Docker image registry: https://ghcr.io/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp
    npm package: https://www.npmjs.com/package/bookstack-mcp
    The server also enforces HTTPS at runtime — it rejects any BOOKSTACK_BASE_URL that does not begin with https:// and exits with an error at startup.



    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 Issues and Pull Requests serve as the primary discussion mechanism. Both are fully searchable, every issue and comment is addressable by a permanent URL, new participants can join without any account requirements beyond a free GitHub registration, and participation requires only a web browser — no proprietary client software is needed.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



    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 project documentation (README, CONTRIBUTING.md, SECURITY.md, docs/) is written in English. Bug reports, feature requests, and code review comments on GitHub Issues and Pull Requests are conducted in English.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



    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.

    The project is actively maintained: v2.6.1 was released in March 2026, CI/CD runs on every pull request and push to main, Dependabot PRs are reviewed and merged weekly, and security advisories are monitored and addressed. The maintainer responds to issues and pull requests.
    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/releases


 Change Control 9/9

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    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.



    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.



    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).

    The repository on GitHub contains the full commit history including all interim work between releases. Pull requests, feature branches, bug fix branches, and in-progress changes are all visible and reviewable before they are merged to main. The repository does not contain only tagged release commits — every commit to main and all open/closed pull requests are publicly accessible.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/commits/main



    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


    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).

    Every release has a unique version identifier following semantic versioning (e.g. v2.6.1). The version is the single source of truth from packages/stdio/package.json and is applied consistently across all release artefacts:

    Git tag: v2.6.1
    Docker image tags: :2.6.1, :2.6, :2, :latest
    npm package version: 2.6.1
    The CI/CD pipeline explicitly prevents overwriting an existing version — if the tag already exists in GHCR the release job fails early.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/releases



    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).


    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]

    Every release is tagged in git using the format vX.Y.Z (e.g. v2.6.1). Tags are created automatically by the CI/CD pipeline after the multi-arch Docker manifest is verified in GHCR — the tag is never created before the release artefacts are confirmed good.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/tags


  • Release notes


    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/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md.



    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.

    There have been no publicly known run-time vulnerabilities with CVE assignments in the project's own code (as distinct from its dependencies). The project's security scanning (CodeQL SAST, npm audit, OSV Scanner, Trivy) has not identified any CVEs in the project's own source code to date. All CVE findings have been in third-party dependencies, which are addressed via Dependabot PRs and tracked in the dependency audit pipeline, not in the project's own release notes.


 Reporting 8/8

  • Bug-reporting process


    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]

    Bug reports are submitted via GitHub Issues. The process is documented in the README "Feedback and contributing" section, which links directly to the issue tracker. No account beyond a free GitHub registration is required to open an issue.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



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

    The project uses GitHub Issues as its issue tracker. Each issue has a unique number, persistent URL, status (open/closed), labels, and comment thread. Issues are used for bug reports, feature requests, and security disclosures (via the private Security Advisories tracker).

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



    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]

    All bug reports and issues submitted via GitHub Issues have been acknowledged and responded to. The project has an active maintainer who responds to issues. The issue tracker and pull request history demonstrate consistent engagement with reporter submissions.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



    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.

    All enhancement requests submitted via GitHub Issues and Pull Requests in the last 12 months have been responded to. The project has an active maintainer who engages with feature requests, either implementing them, providing feedback, or explaining why they are out of scope.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues



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

    GitHub Issues is a publicly available, permanently searchable archive. Every issue, bug report, comment, and response is stored indefinitely, accessible without login, searchable by keyword, and addressable by a permanent URL. The archive is maintained by GitHub infrastructure and cannot be deleted by the project.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/issues


  • Vulnerability report process


    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.

    SECURITY.md at the repository root documents the full vulnerability reporting process, including how to report privately, what information to include, and the response timeline. GitHub also surfaces this file automatically in the "Security" tab and when users open issues.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/SECURITY.md



    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).

    SECURITY.md documents the private reporting channel: GitHub's built-in private vulnerability reporting feature (Security → "Report a vulnerability"), which keeps the report confidential between the reporter and maintainers until disclosure. The URL to report is included directly in the file.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/SECURITY.md



    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).

    SECURITY.md commits to an initial response within 14 days of receiving a vulnerability report, satisfying the criterion by policy. No vulnerability reports have been received in the last 6 months, so there is no response history to evaluate — the policy commitment is sufficient.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/SECURITY.md


 Quality 13/13

  • Working build system


    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).

    The project uses standard npm scripts defined in package.json at the repo root. A single npm run build compiles all TypeScript source to dist/ for both packages. No manual steps are required beyond npm install.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/package.json



    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).

    The build system uses npm (the standard Node.js package manager) and TypeScript's tsc compiler — both ubiquitous, industry-standard tools in the JavaScript/TypeScript ecosystem. No custom or obscure build tooling is required.



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

    All build tools are FLOSS: Node.js (MIT), npm (Artistic License 2.0), and TypeScript (Apache 2.0). No proprietary tools are required at any stage of the build.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/package.json


  • Automated test suite


    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 Vitest (MIT licensed, FLOSS) as its test framework, with fast-check (MIT) for property-based fuzz tests. Tests run via npm test from the repo root. How to run the test suite is documented in both CONTRIBUTING.md and CLAUDE.md, and the CI pipeline runs tests automatically on every PR via functional-tests.yml.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md



    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).

    Tests are invoked via npm test — the standard convention for Node.js/TypeScript projects. Any developer familiar with the ecosystem will know to run this without consulting documentation.

    URL: https://github.com/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp/blob/main/package.json



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

    Code coverage is tracked via Codecov and currently stands at ~80% line coverage. Tests include credential-free unit tests (mocked fetch, all public API methods), property-based fuzz tests, and functional integration tests against a live BookStack instance.

    URL: https://codecov.io/gh/paradoxbound/bookstack-mcp



    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 uses GitHub Actions CI on every pull request and post-merge push. The functional-tests workflow runs npm run type-check, npm run build, and npm run test:coverage (92 unit tests + fuzz tests + functional integration tests) on every PR. Code coverage is uploaded to Codecov on each run. No code reaches main without passing all automated checks.


  • New functionality testing


    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."

    CONTRIBUTING.md requires that any new public API method or MCP tool must include a corresponding unit test in packages/core/tests/api-methods.test.ts and, where applicable, a functional test in read-tools.test.ts or write-tools.test.ts. This is enforced through code review on all PRs.



    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 PRs demonstrate adherence: PR #99 and PR #101 added packages/core/tests/api-methods.test.ts (92 tests covering all public API methods including uploadAttachment, exportPage, exportBook, exportChapter, and all CRUD operations) alongside the corresponding implementation. PR #101 also extended read-tools.test.ts with PDF export functional tests. All new functionality in the codebase has corresponding tests.



    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 requirement for new functionality is documented in CONTRIBUTING.md under "Requirements for acceptable contributions" (requirement 7), which is presented to all contributors when they open a pull request.


  • Warning flags


    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 TypeScript with strict: true in tsconfig.json, which enables strictNullChecks, noImplicitAny, strictFunctionTypes, and all other strict-mode checks. This serves as both a compiler warning system and a safe language mode. TypeScript's type checker runs on every build (npm run type-check) and in CI.



    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).

    ll TypeScript compiler errors and warnings are treated as build failures — tsc exits non-zero on any type error. The type-check step runs in CI and blocks merging if any warnings are present. The codebase currently compiles with zero warnings.



    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.

    tsconfig.json uses "strict": true which is the maximum strictness level available in TypeScript. No // @ts-ignore or // @ts-nocheck suppressions exist in the production source code (src/). The project intentionally avoids loosening any strict-mode checks.


 Security 16/16

  • Secure development knowledge


    The project MUST have at least one primary developer who knows how to design secure software. (See ‘details’ for the exact requirements.) [know_secure_design]
    This requires understanding the following design principles, including the 8 principles from Saltzer and Schroeder:
    • economy of mechanism (keep the design as simple and small as practical, e.g., by adopting sweeping simplifications)
    • fail-safe defaults (access decisions should deny by default, and projects' installation should be secure by default)
    • complete mediation (every access that might be limited must be checked for authority and be non-bypassable)
    • open design (security mechanisms should not depend on attacker ignorance of its design, but instead on more easily protected and changed information like keys and passwords)
    • separation of privilege (ideally, access to important objects should depend on more than one condition, so that defeating one protection system won't enable complete access. E.G., multi-factor authentication, such as requiring both a password and a hardware token, is stronger than single-factor authentication)
    • least privilege (processes should operate with the least privilege necessary)
    • least common mechanism (the design should minimize the mechanisms common to more than one user and depended on by all users, e.g., directories for temporary files)
    • psychological acceptability (the human interface must be designed for ease of use - designing for "least astonishment" can help)
    • limited attack surface (the attack surface - the set of the different points where an attacker can try to enter or extract data - should be limited)
    • input validation with allowlists (inputs should typically be checked to determine if they are valid before they are accepted; this validation should use allowlists (which only accept known-good values), not denylists (which attempt to list known-bad values)).
    A "primary developer" in a project is anyone who is familiar with the project's code base, is comfortable making changes to it, and is acknowledged as such by most other participants in the project. A primary developer would typically make a number of contributions over the past year (via code, documentation, or answering questions). Developers would typically be considered primary developers if they initiated the project (and have not left the project more than three years ago), have the option of receiving information on a private vulnerability reporting channel (if there is one), can accept commits on behalf of the project, or perform final releases of the project software. If there is only one developer, that individual is the primary developer. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss design. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    The project has a single primary developer who is familiar with secure software design principles, including the Saltzer and Schroeder principles, as demonstrated by their application throughout the project:

    Economy of mechanism — the server has no runtime dependencies beyond the MCP SDK and Zod; the API client uses native fetch with no abstraction layers, keeping the attack surface minimal and the codebase auditable.
    Fail-safe defaults — write operations are disabled by default (BOOKSTACK_ENABLE_WRITE=false); the server starts in read-only mode unless explicitly opted in via environment variable.
    Complete mediation — every write operation is gated behind the enableWrite flag check at tool registration time; there is no path to invoke a write tool without the flag being set.
    Open design — security relies on token credentials (not obscurity); the full source is publicly available on GitHub under MIT licence.
    Separation of privilege — the BookStack API itself requires a token ID and token secret together; neither alone is sufficient.
    Least privilege — the server only requests the API scopes it needs; the BOOKSTACK_ENABLE_WRITE flag allows deployments to further restrict to read-only access.
    Least common mechanism — each client instance is isolated; there is no shared mutable state between requests.
    Psychological acceptability — the tool names and descriptions are human-readable and follow the principle of least astonishment; the write-gate default prevents accidental data modification.
    Limited attack surface — documented in SECURITY.md (attack surface analysis section); the server accepts no inbound network connections (stdio transport only), has no web UI, and exposes no ports.
    Input validation with allowlists — all MCP tool inputs are validated against Zod schemas before being passed to the API client; invalid inputs are rejected at the boundary.



    At least one of the project's primary developers MUST know of common kinds of errors that lead to vulnerabilities in this kind of software, as well as at least one method to counter or mitigate each of them. [know_common_errors]
    Examples (depending on the type of software) include SQL injection, OS injection, classic buffer overflow, cross-site scripting, missing authentication, and missing authorization. See the CWE/SANS top 25 or OWASP Top 10 for commonly used lists. Many books and courses are available to help you understand how to develop more secure software and discuss common implementation errors that lead to vulnerabilities. For example, the Secure Software Development Fundamentals course is a free set of three courses that explain how to develop more secure software (it's free if you audit it; for an extra fee you can earn a certificate to prove you learned the material).

    he primary developer is familiar with the common vulnerability classes relevant to this type of software (an API proxy/MCP server that handles credentials and makes authenticated HTTP requests) and the mitigations applied:

    Credential exposure — API tokens are passed only via environment variables, never hardcoded or logged. The server writes to stderr only (not stdout, which carries the MCP protocol), preventing accidental token leakage into protocol output.
    Injection attacks (command/prompt injection) — the server does not execute shell commands or construct dynamic queries; all API calls use structured parameters passed directly to the BookStack REST API. MCP tool inputs are validated via Zod schemas before use.
    Broken access control — write operations are disabled by default and require explicit opt-in (BOOKSTACK_ENABLE_WRITE=true). There is no way to invoke a write tool without the flag being set at startup.
    Insecure dependencies / supply chain — dependencies are tracked via npm audit (enforced in CI at --audit-level=high), pinned GitHub Actions are used by commit hash, and Trivy container scanning runs on every release. A VEX document (vex.json) records non-applicable CVE suppressions.
    Sensitive data exposure — no credentials, tokens, or personally identifiable information are written to logs, stored on disk, or returned in API responses beyond what BookStack itself returns.
    Unvalidated input — all MCP tool inputs pass through Zod schema validation at the tool boundary before being forwarded to the BookStack API; unexpected input is rejected before any processing occurs.
    Denial of service via unbounded requests — the client implements retry logic with Retry-After header support and a maximum of 3 retries for 429 responses, preventing runaway request loops.
    These mitigations are documented in SECURITY.md (threat model and attack surface sections).


  • Use basic good cryptographic practices

    Note that some software does not need to use cryptographic mechanisms. If your project produces software that (1) includes, activates, or enables encryption functionality, and (2) might be released from the United States (US) to outside the US or to a non-US-citizen, you may be legally required to take a few extra steps. Typically this just involves sending an email. For more information, see the encryption section of Understanding Open Source Technology & US Export Controls.

    The software produced by the project MUST use, by default, only cryptographic protocols and algorithms that are publicly published and reviewed by experts (if cryptographic protocols and algorithms are used). [crypto_published]
    These cryptographic criteria do not always apply because some software has no need to directly use cryptographic capabilities.

    The software itself does not implement any cryptography. All cryptographic operations are handled by the underlying platform and dependencies:

    HTTPS/TLS — all communication with the BookStack API uses HTTPS via Node.js's native fetch, which delegates to the Node.js TLS stack (OpenSSL). Only publicly standardised protocols (TLS 1.2/1.3) are used.
    Authentication — the BookStack token-based authentication scheme transmits credentials over HTTPS in the Authorization header; no custom cryptographic scheme is implemented.
    No custom cryptography — the project implements no encryption, hashing, signing, or key derivation of its own. It relies entirely on the TLS provided by Node.js and the BookStack server.
    All cryptographic protocols in use (TLS 1.2/1.3, the cipher suites negotiated by OpenSSL) are publicly published and subject to extensive expert review.



    If the software produced by the project is an application or library, and its primary purpose is not to implement cryptography, then it SHOULD only call on software specifically designed to implement cryptographic functions; it SHOULD NOT re-implement its own. [crypto_call]

    The project is an API proxy/MCP server whose primary purpose is not cryptography. It does not implement any cryptographic functions. All cryptographic operations (TLS, cipher negotiation) are performed by Node.js's built-in TLS stack, which is specifically designed for this purpose. No cryptographic algorithms are re-implemented anywhere in the codebase.



    All functionality in the software produced by the project that depends on cryptography MUST be implementable using FLOSS. [crypto_floss]

    The only cryptographic dependency is TLS, provided by Node.js (MIT/Apache licensed) which uses OpenSSL (Apache-2.0 licensed) — both fully FLOSS. There are no proprietary cryptographic libraries or closed-source TLS implementations required anywhere in the stack.



    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST use default keylengths that at least meet the NIST minimum requirements through the year 2030 (as stated in 2012). It MUST be possible to configure the software so that smaller keylengths are completely disabled. [crypto_keylength]
    These minimum bitlengths are: symmetric key 112, factoring modulus 2048, discrete logarithm key 224, discrete logarithmic group 2048, elliptic curve 224, and hash 224 (password hashing is not covered by this bitlength, more information on password hashing can be found in the crypto_password_storage criterion). See https://www.keylength.com for a comparison of keylength recommendations from various organizations. The software MAY allow smaller keylengths in some configurations (ideally it would not, since this allows downgrade attacks, but shorter keylengths are sometimes necessary for interoperability).

    The project implements no cryptographic key management of its own. TLS connections are established by Node.js's native fetch and the underlying OpenSSL stack, which defaults to TLS 1.2/1.3 with key lengths that meet and exceed NIST 2030 minimums (≥2048-bit RSA, ≥256-bit elliptic curve, ≥128-bit symmetric). Weaker key lengths and older protocol versions (SSL 3, TLS 1.0, TLS 1.1) can be disabled via standard Node.js TLS options (--tls-min-v1.2, secureOptions) or at the OpenSSL configuration level — no application-level changes are required. The project itself does not expose any configuration that would allow weaker keys to be selected.



    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST NOT depend on broken cryptographic algorithms (e.g., MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, Dual_EC_DRBG), or use cipher modes that are inappropriate to the context, unless they are necessary to implement an interoperable protocol (where the protocol implemented is the most recent version of that standard broadly supported by the network ecosystem, that ecosystem requires the use of such an algorithm or mode, and that ecosystem does not offer any more secure alternative). The documentation MUST describe any relevant security risks and any known mitigations if these broken algorithms or modes are necessary for an interoperable protocol. [crypto_working]
    ECB mode is almost never appropriate because it reveals identical blocks within the ciphertext as demonstrated by the ECB penguin, and CTR mode is often inappropriate because it does not perform authentication and causes duplicates if the input state is repeated. In many cases it's best to choose a block cipher algorithm mode designed to combine secrecy and authentication, e.g., Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) and EAX. Projects MAY allow users to enable broken mechanisms (e.g., during configuration) where necessary for compatibility, but then users know they're doing it.

    The project uses no broken cryptographic algorithms. No MD4, MD5, single DES, RC4, or Dual_EC_DRBG are used anywhere in the codebase or its dependencies. TLS connections are handled entirely by Node.js/OpenSSL using modern cipher suites (TLS 1.2/1.3). The project does not implement any protocol that would require use of broken algorithms, and there are no known mitigations to document.



    The default security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD NOT depend on cryptographic algorithms or modes with known serious weaknesses (e.g., the SHA-1 cryptographic hash algorithm or the CBC mode in SSH). [crypto_weaknesses]
    Concerns about CBC mode in SSH are discussed in CERT: SSH CBC vulnerability.

    The project depends on no cryptographic algorithms with known serious weaknesses. No SHA-1, CBC mode in SSH, or similar weakened algorithms are used. All TLS cipher suite selection is delegated to Node.js/OpenSSL, which in modern versions disables weak algorithms by default and prefers AEAD cipher suites (AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305) with TLS 1.3.



    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project SHOULD implement perfect forward secrecy for key agreement protocols so a session key derived from a set of long-term keys cannot be compromised if one of the long-term keys is compromised in the future. [crypto_pfs]

    Perfect forward secrecy is provided by Node.js/OpenSSL's TLS stack, which preferentially negotiates ephemeral key exchange cipher suites (ECDHE, DHE) for all HTTPS connections. This is the default behaviour in modern Node.js (v18+) and requires no application-level configuration. If a long-term private key is later compromised, past session traffic remains protected.



    If the software produced by the project causes the storing of passwords for authentication of external users, the passwords MUST be stored as iterated hashes with a per-user salt by using a key stretching (iterated) algorithm (e.g., Argon2id, Bcrypt, Scrypt, or PBKDF2). See also OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. [crypto_password_storage]
    This criterion applies only when the software is enforcing authentication of users using passwords for external users (aka inbound authentication), such as server-side web applications. It does not apply in cases where the software stores passwords for authenticating into other systems (aka outbound authentication, e.g., the software implements a client for some other system), since at least parts of that software must have often access to the unhashed password.

    The software does not store passwords. It is an API proxy/MCP server that forwards requests to BookStack using pre-configured API tokens. No user authentication, user accounts, or password storage of any kind is implemented.



    The security mechanisms within the software produced by the project MUST generate all cryptographic keys and nonces using a cryptographically secure random number generator, and MUST NOT do so using generators that are cryptographically insecure. [crypto_random]
    A cryptographically secure random number generator may be a hardware random number generator, or it may be a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator (CSPRNG) using an algorithm such as Hash_DRBG, HMAC_DRBG, CTR_DRBG, Yarrow, or Fortuna. Examples of calls to secure random number generators include Java's java.security.SecureRandom and JavaScript's window.crypto.getRandomValues. Examples of calls to insecure random number generators include Java's java.util.Random and JavaScript's Math.random.

    The software generates no cryptographic keys or nonces. All cryptographic material (TLS keys, session nonces) is generated internally by Node.js/OpenSSL, which uses a cryptographically secure random number generator. The project code itself makes no calls to any random number generator for security purposes.


  • Secured delivery against man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks


    The project MUST use a delivery mechanism that counters MITM attacks. Using https or ssh+scp is acceptable. [delivery_mitm]
    An even stronger mechanism is releasing the software with digitally signed packages, since that mitigates attacks on the distribution system, but this only works if the users can be confident that the public keys for signatures are correct and if the users will actually check the signature.

    The project is distributed via two delivery mechanisms, both of which counter MITM attacks:

    npm — published as bookstack-mcp on the npm registry, which is served over HTTPS with TLS certificate validation enforced by the npm client.
    GitHub Container Registry (GHCR) — Docker images are published to ghcr.io over HTTPS, with SLSA Level 2 provenance attestations generated by actions/attest-build-provenance on every release, allowing consumers to cryptographically verify the build provenance.
    Source code is available via GitHub over HTTPS and SSH. No insecure (plain HTTP) distribution channel is used.



    A cryptographic hash (e.g., a sha1sum) MUST NOT be retrieved over http and used without checking for a cryptographic signature. [delivery_unsigned]
    These hashes can be modified in transit.

    The project does not retrieve cryptographic hashes over HTTP. All GitHub Actions are pinned by commit SHA (not by mutable tag), and all package downloads occur over HTTPS via npm and GitHub's package registry. No hash is fetched over plain HTTP anywhere in the build, CI, or distribution pipeline.


  • Publicly known vulnerabilities fixed


    There MUST be no unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity that have been publicly known for more than 60 days. [vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days]
    The vulnerability must be patched and released by the project itself (patches may be developed elsewhere). A vulnerability becomes publicly known (for this purpose) once it has a CVE with publicly released non-paywalled information (reported, for example, in the National Vulnerability Database) or when the project has been informed and the information has been released to the public (possibly by the project). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note: this means that users might be left vulnerable to all attackers worldwide for up to 60 days. This criterion is often much easier to meet than what Google recommends in Rebooting responsible disclosure, because Google recommends that the 60-day period start when the project is notified even if the report is not public. Also note that this badge criterion, like other criteria, applies to the individual project. Some projects are part of larger umbrella organizations or larger projects, possibly in multiple layers, and many projects feed their results to other organizations and projects as part of a potentially-complex supply chain. An individual project often cannot control the rest, but an individual project can work to release a vulnerability patch in a timely way. Therefore, we focus solely on the individual project's response time. Once a patch is available from the individual project, others can determine how to deal with the patch (e.g., they can update to the newer version or they can apply just the patch as a cherry-picked solution).

    Dependency vulnerabilities are tracked via npm audit (enforced in CI at --audit-level=high) and Trivy container scanning on every release. Dependabot is enabled and automatically opens PRs for vulnerable dependencies. No known unpatched vulnerabilities of medium or higher severity exist in the current release. The VEX document (vex.json) records any CVEs assessed as non-applicable with documented justification.



    Projects SHOULD fix all critical vulnerabilities rapidly after they are reported. [vulnerabilities_critical_fixed]

    Critical vulnerabilities are addressed as the highest priority. Dependabot PRs for security updates are reviewed and merged promptly. The security policy in SECURITY.md commits to a remediation timeline of 7 days for critical severity issues and 30 days for high severity issues.


  • Other security issues


    The public repositories MUST NOT leak a valid private credential (e.g., a working password or private key) that is intended to limit public access. [no_leaked_credentials]
    A project MAY leak "sample" credentials for testing and unimportant databases, as long as they are not intended to limit public access.

    No credentials, tokens, private keys, or secrets have ever been committed to the repository. All sensitive values are passed via environment variables at runtime. GitHub secret scanning is enabled on the repository and would alert on any accidental credential commit. The git history has been reviewed and contains no credential material.


 Analysis 8/8

  • Static code analysis


    At least one static code analysis tool (beyond compiler warnings and "safe" language modes) MUST be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release, if there is at least one FLOSS tool that implements this criterion in the selected language. [static_analysis]
    A static code analysis tool examines the software code (as source code, intermediate code, or executable) without executing it with specific inputs. For purposes of this criterion, compiler warnings and "safe" language modes do not count as static code analysis tools (these typically avoid deep analysis because speed is vital). Some static analysis tools focus on detecting generic defects, others focus on finding specific kinds of defects (such as vulnerabilities), and some do a combination. Examples of such static code analysis tools include cppcheck (C, C++), clang static analyzer (C, C++), SpotBugs (Java), FindBugs (Java) (including FindSecurityBugs), PMD (Java), Brakeman (Ruby on Rails), lintr (R), goodpractice (R), Coverity Quality Analyzer, SonarQube, Codacy, and HP Enterprise Fortify Static Code Analyzer. Larger lists of tools can be found in places such as the Wikipedia list of tools for static code analysis, OWASP information on static code analysis, NIST list of source code security analyzers, and Wheeler's list of static analysis tools. If there are no FLOSS static analysis tools available for the implementation language(s) used, you may select 'N/A'.

    CodeQL static analysis runs on every push to main and on every pull request via the .github/workflows/scorecard.yml workflow (which includes CodeQL via OpenSSF Scorecard) and a dedicated CodeQL workflow. CodeQL analyses the TypeScript source for security vulnerabilities and code quality issues. It is a required status check for merging to main



    It is SUGGESTED that at least one of the static analysis tools used for the static_analysis criterion include rules or approaches to look for common vulnerabilities in the analyzed language or environment. [static_analysis_common_vulnerabilities]
    Static analysis tools that are specifically designed to look for common vulnerabilities are more likely to find them. That said, using any static tools will typically help find some problems, so we are suggesting but not requiring this for the 'passing' level badge.

    CodeQL includes a security-and-quality query suite that specifically targets common vulnerability classes relevant to JavaScript/TypeScript, including injection flaws, path traversal, insecure use of cryptography, and prototype pollution. npm audit additionally scans all dependencies for known CVEs on every CI run.



    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with static code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [static_analysis_fixed]
    A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known. Note that criterion vulnerabilities_fixed_60_days requires that all such vulnerabilities be fixed within 60 days of being made public.

    Any medium or higher severity vulnerability identified by CodeQL or npm audit blocks merging (CodeQL is a required PR check; npm audit --audit-level=high is enforced in CI). Confirmed findings are remediated per the timelines documented in SECURITY.md (7 days critical, 30 days high, 60 days medium).



    It is SUGGESTED that static source code analysis occur on every commit or at least daily. [static_analysis_often]

    The project includes property-based fuzz tests using fast-check and @fast-check/vitest (packages/core/tests/fuzz.test.ts), which run on every CI build. These tests generate randomised inputs to exercise URL construction, parameter handling, and response parsing logic across a large input space.


  • Dynamic code analysis


    It is SUGGESTED that at least one dynamic analysis tool be applied to any proposed major production release of the software before its release. [dynamic_analysis]
    A dynamic analysis tool examines the software by executing it with specific inputs. For example, the project MAY use a fuzzing tool (e.g., American Fuzzy Lop) or a web application scanner (e.g., OWASP ZAP or w3af). In some cases the OSS-Fuzz project may be willing to apply fuzz testing to your project. For purposes of this criterion the dynamic analysis tool needs to vary the inputs in some way to look for various kinds of problems or be an automated test suite with at least 80% branch coverage. The Wikipedia page on dynamic analysis and the OWASP page on fuzzing identify some dynamic analysis tools. The analysis tool(s) MAY be focused on looking for security vulnerabilities, but this is not required.

    The project includes property-based fuzz tests using fast-check and @fast-check/vitest (packages/core/tests/fuzz.test.ts), which run on every CI build. These tests generate randomised inputs to exercise URL construction, parameter handling, and response parsing logic across a large input space.



    It is SUGGESTED that if the software produced by the project includes software written using a memory-unsafe language (e.g., C or C++), then at least one dynamic tool (e.g., a fuzzer or web application scanner) be routinely used in combination with a mechanism to detect memory safety problems such as buffer overwrites. If the project does not produce software written in a memory-unsafe language, choose "not applicable" (N/A). [dynamic_analysis_unsafe]
    Examples of mechanisms to detect memory safety problems include Address Sanitizer (ASAN) (available in GCC and LLVM), Memory Sanitizer, and valgrind. Other potentially-used tools include thread sanitizer and undefined behavior sanitizer. Widespread assertions would also work.

    he project is written entirely in TypeScript/JavaScript, which is a memory-safe language. No C, C++, or other memory-unsafe languages are used.



    It is SUGGESTED that the project use a configuration for at least some dynamic analysis (such as testing or fuzzing) which enables many assertions. In many cases these assertions should not be enabled in production builds. [dynamic_analysis_enable_assertions]
    This criterion does not suggest enabling assertions during production; that is entirely up to the project and its users to decide. This criterion's focus is instead to improve fault detection during dynamic analysis before deployment. Enabling assertions in production use is completely different from enabling assertions during dynamic analysis (such as testing). In some cases enabling assertions in production use is extremely unwise (especially in high-integrity components). There are many arguments against enabling assertions in production, e.g., libraries should not crash callers, their presence may cause rejection by app stores, and/or activating an assertion in production may expose private data such as private keys. Beware that in many Linux distributions NDEBUG is not defined, so C/C++ assert() will by default be enabled for production in those environments. It may be important to use a different assertion mechanism or defining NDEBUG for production in those environments.

    The fuzz tests run under Vitest with full TypeScript strict-mode checks active. The property-based tests include explicit invariant assertions (e.g. URL format, response structure) that are verified across thousands of generated inputs on every CI run.



    All medium and higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities discovered with dynamic code analysis MUST be fixed in a timely way after they are confirmed. [dynamic_analysis_fixed]
    If you are not running dynamic code analysis and thus have not found any vulnerabilities in this way, choose "not applicable" (N/A). A vulnerability is considered medium or higher severity if its Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) base qualitative score is medium or higher. In CVSS versions 2.0 through 3.1, this is equivalent to a CVSS score of 4.0 or higher. Projects may use the CVSS score as published in a widely-used vulnerability database (such as the National Vulnerability Database) using the most-recent version of CVSS reported in that database. Projects may instead calculate the severity themselves using the latest version of CVSS at the time of the vulnerability disclosure, if the calculation inputs are publicly revealed once the vulnerability is publicly known.

    Any exploitable vulnerability discovered through fuzz testing or dynamic analysis would be treated as a security finding and remediated per the timelines in SECURITY.md. No such vulnerabilities have been discovered to date.



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 Jim Bailey and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Jim Bailey.
Entry created on 2026-03-08 10:20:21 UTC, last updated on 2026-03-10 14:13:23 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-03-10 14:13:23 UTC.