chore: add OpenSSF trust baseline - #10
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Joachimiak <262029076+dzeusking-dev@users.noreply.github.com>
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 84cc80b99b
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| "osps_qa_05_01": "Met", | ||
| "osps_qa_05_01_justification": "Generated executables and packages are built in CI and not committed.", | ||
| "osps_qa_05_02": "Met", | ||
| "osps_qa_05_02_justification": "The repository contains source and reviewable configuration, not executable binaries.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this questionnaire is imported or submitted, it reports false compliance: the build script in package.json generates mcp/server.mjs with esbuild, while that generated runtime is tracked in the repository and included in the package. osps_qa_05_01 should not be marked Met unless the artifact is removed; if it remains, osps_qa_05_02 needs actual provenance evidence rather than the contradictory claim that no executable artifacts are present.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| ## License | ||
|
|
||
| Apache-2.0. Copyright 2026 Gexiro Global Enterprises Ltd. | ||
| [Security and trust evidence](docs/SECURITY-TRUST.md) documents the project's policies and automated checks. No certification or badge level is claimed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When users consume the official runtime npm tarball rather than a repository checkout, this relative link is broken: the package.json files allowlist omits docs/SECURITY-TRUST.md, and npm pack includes README.md but not that target. The trust page also links to the omitted GOVERNANCE.md and MAINTAINERS.md; add these files to the package allowlist/content check or use canonical repository URLs.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
Blocked by a pre-existing, time-sensitive container vulnerability gate outside this documentation/Scorecard diff: |
1 participant
Summary
Verification
No release, tag, version bump, certification claim, or paid feature.