Trinity

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 14772 is silver 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/14772/badge)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14772)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14772"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/14772/badge"></a>


These are the Gold level criteria. You can also view the Passing or Silver level criteria.

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

        

 Basics 3/5 ●

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    A personal AI agent for your own machine: remembers you, learns procedures, acts through tools behind a permission gate, and never loses your work. Elixir/OTP and Phoenix LiveView, shipped as a desktop app. Apache-2.0.

    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.

  • Prerequisites


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST achieve a silver level badge. [achieve_silver]

  • Project oversight


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST have a "bus factor" of 2 or more. (URL required) [bus_factor]
    A "bus factor" (aka "truck factor") is the minimum number of project members that have to suddenly disappear from a project ("hit by a bus") before the project stalls due to lack of knowledgeable or competent personnel. The truck-factor tool can estimate this for projects on GitHub. For more information, see Assessing the Bus Factor of Git Repositories by Cosentino et al.

    The project has three maintainers with review, merge, tag and release rights, which closes availability (see access_continuity). It does not yet have a bus factor of two in the sense this criterion means: every commit in the tree to date has one author, so the knowledge to continue the work has not been demonstrated to be held by more than one person. Recorded as R22 in https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/docs/06-risk-register.md with a lift condition a reader can check: reviews and merged changes from a maintainer other than the author, in the git history.


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST have at least two unassociated significant contributors. (URL required) [contributors_unassociated]
    Contributors are associated if they are paid to work by the same organization (as an employee or contractor) and the organization stands to benefit from the project's results. Financial grants do not count as being from the same organization if they pass through other organizations (e.g., science grants paid to different organizations from a common government or NGO source do not cause contributors to be associated). Someone is a significant contributor if they have made non-trivial contributions to the project in the past year. Examples of good indicators of a significant contributor are: written at least 1,000 lines of code, contributed 50 commits, or contributed at least 20 pages of documentation.

    Every commit in the tree has a single author. Two further maintainers joined 2026-09-23 with review and merge rights, but the git history does not yet show significant contributions from more than one person. Tracked as R22 with a lift condition. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/docs/06-risk-register.md


  • Other


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST include a license statement in each source file. This MAY be done by including the following inside a comment near the beginning of each file: SPDX-License-Identifier: [SPDX license expression for project]. [license_per_file]
    This MAY also be done by including a statement in natural language identifying the license. The project MAY also include a stable URL pointing to the license text, or the full license text. Note that the criterion license_location requires the project license be in a standard location. See this SPDX tutorial for more information about SPDX license expressions. Note the relationship with copyright_per_file, whose content would typically precede the license information.

    Every source file carries SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0, held by the same test, which also asserts the licence named is the project's own. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/test/spdx_headers_test.exs


 Change Control 4/4 ●

  • Public version-controlled source repository


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's source repository MUST use a common distributed version control software (e.g., git or mercurial). [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.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST clearly identify small tasks that can be performed by new or casual contributors. (URL required) [small_tasks]
    This identification is typically done by marking selected issues in an issue tracker with one or more tags the project uses for the purpose, e.g., up-for-grabs, first-timers-only, "Small fix", microtask, or IdealFirstBug. These new tasks need not involve adding functionality; they can be improving documentation, adding test cases, or anything else that aids the project and helps the contributor understand more about the project.

    The Good first tasks section of CONTRIBUTING.md identifies small self-contained work across documentation, tests and code. Every task came out of the tree rather than being invented to fill the list. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST require two-factor authentication (2FA) for developers for changing a central repository or accessing sensitive data (such as private vulnerability reports). This 2FA mechanism MAY use mechanisms without cryptographic mechanisms such as SMS, though that is not recommended. [require_2FA]

    Two-factor authentication is required for every account with write access to the repository, enforced by the GitHub organisation rather than requested in a document: an account without it loses access. Stated in https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md


    Enough for a badge!

    The project's two-factor authentication (2FA) SHOULD use cryptographic mechanisms to prevent impersonation. Short Message Service (SMS) based 2FA, by itself, does NOT meet this criterion, since it is not encrypted. [secure_2FA]
    A 2FA mechanism that meets this criterion would be a Time-based One-Time Password (TOTP) application that automatically generates an authentication code that changes after a certain period of time. Note that GitHub supports TOTP.

    Two-factor authentication is enforced for all write access by the GitHub organisation, and every maintainer's second factor is cryptographic rather than SMS. GitHub exposes whether 2FA is enabled but never which method, so this is the maintainers' attestation rather than a queryable fact, and is stated as such. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/GOVERNANCE.md


 Quality 4/7 ●

  • Coding standards


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST document its code review requirements, including how code review is conducted, what must be checked, and what is required to be acceptable. (URL required) [code_review_standards]
    See also two_person_review and contribution_requirements.

    The Code review section of docs/03-conventions.md documents how review is conducted, the seven things a reviewer must form an opinion on, and the six conditions a change must meet together. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/docs/03-conventions.md


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST have at least 50% of all proposed modifications reviewed before release by a person other than the author, to determine if it is a worthwhile modification and free of known issues which would argue against its inclusion [two_person_review]

    Changes land through pull requests against a protected branch with the full build green, but the project had one maintainer for its whole history, so fewer than 50% of changes were reviewed by someone other than their author. The standard those reviews will be held to is already written in docs/03-conventions.md. Tracked as R22.


  • Working build system


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have a reproducible build. If no building occurs (e.g., scripting languages where the source code is used directly instead of being compiled), select "not applicable" (N/A). (URL required) [build_reproducible]
    A reproducible build means that multiple parties can independently redo the process of generating information from source files and get exactly the same bit-for-bit result. In some cases, this can be resolved by forcing some sort order. JavaScript developers may consider using npm shrinkwrap and webpack OccurrenceOrderPlugin. GCC and clang users may find the -frandom-seed option useful. The build environment (including the toolset) can often be defined for external parties by specifying the cryptographic hash of a specific container or virtual machine that they can use for rebuilding. The reproducible builds project has documentation on how to do this.

    Measured and re-runnable with ./scripts/check_reproducible.sh, which builds the release twice from a clean tree and compares every file. All 243 modules this project compiles are byte-identical. The node cookie is a per-release secret that must differ, and three dependency modules vary upstream; both are named. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/docs/packaging.md


  • Automated test suite


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    A test suite MUST be invocable in a standard way for that language. (URL required) [test_invocation]
    For example, "make check", "mvn test", or "rake test" (Ruby).

    mix test, the standard invocation for Elixir.

    Warning: URL required, but no URL found.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST implement continuous integration, where new or changed code is frequently integrated into a central code repository and automated tests are run on the result. (URL required) [test_continuous_integration]
    In most cases this means that each developer who works full-time on the project integrates at least daily.

    GitHub Actions runs the full gate on every push and pull request, across SQLite, PostgreSQL and a FIPS-mode container. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/.github/workflows/gate.yml


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 90% statement coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_statement_coverage90]

    Statement coverage is 80.31%, measured on every build and recorded per increment in coverage.tsv with a floor enforced against regressions. That clears the 80% silver bar and not the 90% gold one. Raising it is ordinary test work rather than one change.


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have FLOSS automated test suite(s) that provide at least 80% branch coverage if there is at least one FLOSS tool that can measure this criterion in the selected language. [test_branch_coverage80]

    No FLOSS tool measures branch coverage for this language, and the criterion is conditional on one existing. Every Elixir coverage tool wraps Erlang's cover, and cover:analyse/3 has no clause for branch: it raises function_clause. Statement coverage is measured on every build and is 80.31%.


 Security 3/5 ●

  • 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.

    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST support secure protocols for all of its network communications, such as SSHv2 or later, TLS1.2 or later (HTTPS), IPsec, SFTP, and SNMPv3. Insecure protocols such as FTP, HTTP, telnet, SSLv3 or earlier, and SSHv1 MUST be disabled by default, and only enabled if the user specifically configures it. If the software produced by the project does not support network communications, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_used_network]

    All outbound network communication uses TLS through the runtime's own TLS implementation. The floor is TLS 1.2 (the default set is 1.3 and 1.2) and the project does not lower it. This is pinned by a test that asserts the runtime's supported versions rather than the sentence in the README.


    Enough for a badge!

    The software produced by the project MUST, if it supports or uses TLS, support at least TLS version 1.2. Note that the predecessor of TLS was called SSL. If the software does not use TLS, select "not applicable" (N/A). [crypto_tls12]

    TLS 1.3 and 1.2 are the supported versions; 1.1 and 1.0 are available in the runtime but are not in the default set and the project does not enable them. Asserted by a test against the runtime rather than documented.


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


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    The project website, repository (if accessible via the web), and download site (if separate) MUST include key hardening headers with nonpermissive values. (URL required) [hardened_site]
    Note that GitHub and GitLab are known to meet this. Sites such as https://securityheaders.com/ can quickly check this. The key hardening headers are: Content Security Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), X-Content-Type-Options (as "nosniff"), and X-Frame-Options. Fully static web sites with no ability to log in via the web pages could omit some hardening headers with less risk, but there's no reliable way to detect such sites, so we require these headers even if they are fully static sites.

    Found all required security hardening headers.

    Warning: URL required, but no URL found.


  • Other security issues


    Enough for a badge!

    The project MUST have performed a security review within the last 5 years. This review MUST consider the security requirements and security boundary. [security_review]
    This MAY be done by the project members and/or an independent evaluation. This evaluation MAY be supported by static and dynamic analysis tools, but there also must be human review to identify problems (particularly in design) that tools cannot detect.

    A security review was performed 2026-09-23 and recorded, with its scope, what is outside it, and its method: requirements read as claims and traced to the code and test holding each, the trust boundary walked both ways, and five named adversaries taken in turn. Five findings resolved, four open with what would close each. https://github.com/ScriptKittyOS/Trinity/blob/main/docs/11-security-review.md


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    Hardening mechanisms MUST be used in the software produced by the project so that software defects are less likely to result in security vulnerabilities. (URL required) [hardening]
    Hardening mechanisms may include HTTP headers like Content Security Policy (CSP), compiler flags to mitigate attacks (such as -fstack-protector), or compiler flags to eliminate undefined behavior. For our purposes least privilege is not considered a hardening mechanism (least privilege is important, but separate).

    Memory-safe languages throughout (Elixir on the BEAM, Rust in the desktop shell, no C or C++ of the project's own). Beyond the language: one compile-time side-effect membrane that runtime-registered code cannot enter, approvals bound to a canonical hash of the exact call, iteration and token and wall-clock caps owned by the code rather than passed in as arguments, and build tokens narrowed to read with writes declared per job.

    Warning: URL required, but no URL found.


 Analysis 1/2 ●

  • Dynamic code analysis


    Not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST apply at least one dynamic analysis tool to any proposed major production release of the software produced by the project 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.

    No fuzzing or dynamic application security testing is performed yet. The project runs an extensive automated test suite, including concurrency stress tests, but that is not dynamic analysis tooling.


    Barely enough for a badge.

    The project SHOULD include many run-time assertions in the software it produces and check those assertions during dynamic analysis. [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.

    No dynamic analysis tooling is in use, so there is no configuration in which to enable assertions.



You can use tools and AI systems to propose changes via a simple URL, such as https://www.bestpractices.dev/en/projects/14772/choose/edit?osps_ac_01_01_status=Met&osps_ac_01_01_justification=GitHub+enforced. See our automation proposals system for how to do that. 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 Ayla Croft and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: Ayla Croft.
Entry created on 2026-09-23 14:16:11 UTC, last updated on 2026-09-24 00:04:30 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-09-23 16:09:37 UTC.