commitment-issues

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 13528 is baseline-1 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13528/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 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.

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

    Please use SPDX license expression format; examples include "Apache-2.0", "BSD-2-Clause", "BSD-3-Clause", "GPL-2.0+", "LGPL-3.0+", "MIT", and "(BSD-2-Clause OR Ruby)". Do not include single quotes or double quotes.
    If there is more than one language, list them as comma-separated values (spaces optional) and sort them from most to least used. If there is a long list, please list at least the first three most common ones. If there is no language (e.g., this is a documentation-only or test-only project), use the single character "-". Please use a conventional capitalization for each language, e.g., "JavaScript".
    The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) is a structured naming scheme for information technology systems, software, and packages. It is used in a number of systems and databases when reporting vulnerabilities.

 Controls 8/21 ●

  • Controls


    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Unknown required information, not 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.

    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.

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

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


    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Not 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.

    The project has a release workflow that publishes through npm trusted publishing and generates SLSA provenance, but I do not see a documented user-facing process explaining how users can obtain public signing keys and verify release signatures. Keep this Unmet until release-signing verification instructions are documented. Current partial release-security evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/publish.yml. [signed_releases]


    Not 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.

    The project has a release workflow that publishes through npm trusted publishing and generates SLSA provenance, but I do not see a documented user-facing process explaining how users can obtain public signing keys and verify release signatures. Keep this Unmet until release-signing verification instructions are documented. Current partial release-security evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/publish.yml. [signed_releases]


    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Unknown required information, not 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.

    Unknown required information, not 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.

    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.

    The project uses publicly released FLOSS automated tests stored in the public source repository. The test suite uses Node.js's built-in node:test runner and node:assert/strict, and the standard command is npm test. The test command is documented in package.json and the contributing guide: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#testing. The GitHub Actions CI workflow also runs the test suite automatically on pushes and pull requests. [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 project documents a test policy, but the current wording is not strong enough for this criterion because it says behavior changes should include automated tests rather than requiring that major new functionality MUST include tests. Current partial policy is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#contribution-requirements. [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.

    [two_person_review]


    Not 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.

    Not yet.

    This requirement is not currently satisfied.

    To meet this requirement, the project should publish an assurance case (for example, docs/security/assurance-case.md) that includes:

    • A description of the project's threat model, including expected attackers, assets, and assumptions.
    • Clear identification of trust boundaries (such as user repositories, Git hooks, local configuration, the operating system, external tools, and CI environments).
    • An explanation of how secure design principles are applied (least privilege, fail-safe defaults, defense in depth, secure defaults, and minimizing trust).
    • An explanation of how common implementation security weaknesses are mitigated (input validation, command execution safety, path handling, temporary files, dependency management, error handling, and testing).

    Once published, the URL to this document can be provided as evidence for this requirement. [assurance_case]


    Unknown required information, 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.

    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.

    The project makes reused externally maintained components easy to identify and update through standard npm metadata and Dependabot. Dependencies are listed in package.json and locked in package-lock.json, and Dependabot is configured to open update pull requests for both npm packages and GitHub Actions. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json, https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package-lock.json, and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/dependabot.yml. [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.

    The project makes reused externally maintained components easy to identify and update through standard npm metadata and Dependabot. Dependencies are listed in package.json and locked in package-lock.json, and Dependabot is configured to open update pull requests for both npm packages and GitHub Actions. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json, https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package-lock.json, and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/dependabot.yml. [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.

    The project makes reused externally maintained components easy to identify and update through standard npm metadata and Dependabot. Dependencies are listed in package.json and locked in package-lock.json, and Dependabot is configured to open update pull requests for both npm packages and GitHub Actions. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package.json, https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/package-lock.json, and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/dependabot.yml. [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.

    The project has no confirmed medium-or-higher severity exploitable vulnerabilities currently documented as unresolved from static analysis. Static analysis is run through CodeQL, and the documented security review found no high-severity vulnerabilities requiring immediate remediation. If CodeQL later identifies a confirmed medium-or-higher exploitable vulnerability, it should be fixed in a timely way before release. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/docs/security-review-2026-07.md. [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.

    The project applies static analysis beyond compiler warnings by using GitHub CodeQL for JavaScript/TypeScript and ESLint for code-quality analysis. CodeQL runs on pushes to main, pull requests, a scheduled cadence, and manual dispatch. ESLint also runs in CI on pushes and pull requests. Evidence is here: https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/codeql.yml, https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/eslint.config.js, and https://github.com/RoryGlenn/commitment-issues/blob/main/.github/workflows/ci.yml. [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 RoryGlenn and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

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