boost

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

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

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 14275 is baseline-2 Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14275/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 1 criteria. These are criteria version v2026.02.19.

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

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

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

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

 Controls 24/24 ●

  • Controls


    Enough for a badge!

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

    GitHub requires 2FA as of March 2023.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    GitHub, the project's version control system, requires an explicit permission level to be chosen when a collaborator is invited - there is no implicit grant, and the default offered is Read. No collaborator receives write access without a deliberate assignment.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    A direct commit to main is refused. The repository carries both classic branch protection (main reports protected: true with 14 required status checks) and a ruleset containing a pull_request rule, so a change can only reach main through a pull request that has passed the required-check gate. A non_fast_forward rule additionally blocks force-pushes. CONTRIBUTING.md documents the same policy: https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

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

    main is a protected branch in GitHub. A protected branch cannot be deleted through the UI or the API while its protection is in place - the protection must first be explicitly removed - which is a stronger guarantee than a confirmation prompt. A non_fast_forward ruleset rule also prevents history from being rewritten.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The CI workflows are statically audited by zizmor on every pull request as a required check ('workflow SAST (zizmor)' in ci.yml), and template injection is one of the classes it flags - untrusted metadata such as a branch name, commit message, tag, pull-request title or author interpolated directly into a run: block. The workflows are written to that rule deliberately: where such a value is needed it is passed through an env: binding rather than interpolated into the shell, and adapter-conformance.yml carries an explicit comment naming the template-injection shape it is avoiding.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    No workflow in the repository uses pull_request_target - every pull-request job runs on the pull_request event, so a fork's proposed code executes with a read-only GITHUB_TOKEN and no access to repository secrets. The few secrets referenced (CODECOV_TOKEN, SONAR_TOKEN, and the optional evaluation API keys) resolve to empty for a fork pull request, and each guarded step skips itself rather than failing. Publishing credentials are not stored at all: releases use PyPI Trusted Publishing, a short-lived OIDC identity minted only for the publish workflow, which never runs on a pull request. step-security/harden-runner additionally audits egress on the sensitive jobs.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Project URLs use HTTPS exclusively.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Distribution channels use HTTPS exclusively.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    gitleaks runs in CI on every push over the repository and fails the build on a hit; the allowlist in .gitleaks.toml covers only boost's own synthetic secret-scanner test fixtures. Structurally there is little to leak in the first place: publishing uses a short-lived OIDC identity rather than a stored PyPI token, and the two optional dashboard secrets are absent by default with their jobs skipping themselves. [no_leaked_credentials]


    Enough for a badge!

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

    README (install, quick start, concepts), the Visual Guide at https://jonnyeclectic.github.io/boost/, docs/DEBUGGING.md and docs/rag-architecture.md. [documentation_basics]


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Non-trivial SECURITY[.md] file found file in repository: https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SECURITY.md.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    GitHub supports public discussions on proposed changes (via pull requests) and usage obstacles (via issues).


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Contribution process documented in repository.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The GPL-3.0 license for the repository contents is approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI).


    Enough for a badge!

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

    GPL-3.0. [floss_license]


    Enough for a badge!

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

    License file found in repository.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/LICENSE - at the repository root, and declared in pyproject.toml. [license_location]


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Repository is publicly available on GitHub.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    Repository git metadata is publicly available on GitHub.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    pyproject.toml declares the project's direct dependencies (the runtime is deliberately standard-library only; the optional [rag], [eval], [bdd] and [langchain] extras declare theirs). The development and CI toolchain is enumerated in requirements/.in and locked in requirements/.txt, which pin an exact version and every artifact's sha256 for the full transitive closure, enforced by pip --require-hashes. https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/pyproject.toml


    Enough for a badge!

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

    boost is a single-repository project. There are no subproject repositories that are part of the project or compiled into a release; everything released as boost-skill-cli is built from https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost alone.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The repository contains no generated executable artifact. The files carrying the executable bit are all reviewable source - shell scripts under scripts/ and examples/, Python scripts under scripts/, evals/ and tests/, and the ./boost development shim. Build outputs (wheel, sdist) are produced at release time by the publish workflow and are never committed; boost_cli/_version.py is generated by setuptools-scm at build time and is gitignored.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    The repository contains no unreviewable binary artifact - no application binary, no library file, no compiled object. An audit of every tracked file for binary content returns only reviewable items: three zero-byte marker files (two package init.py files and boost_langchain/py.typed) and a handful of fuzzing corpus seeds under tests/fuzz/corpus/, the largest of which is 10 bytes and which exist precisely to be read as byte sequences (one contains a NUL to seed that input class). The remaining binary-format files are documentation assets - the demo GIF and site images - which the criterion explicitly excludes.


    Enough for a badge!

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

    https://github.com/jonnyeclectic/boost/blob/main/SECURITY.md states the channel, the expected acknowledgement time, and what a useful report contains. [vulnerability_report_process]



This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit Jonathan Reyes and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

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