Assurance Case

This assurance case explains why a maintainer or user can have confidence in a BoardReadyOps release, and where confidence is still limited.

Claim 1: The repository has professional OSS hygiene

Evidence:

• README, license, contributing guide, code of conduct, security policy, support policy, governance, maintainer file, issue templates, PR templates, and CODEOWNERS are present.
• GitHub Community profile API returned 100 during the 2026-07-02 audit.

Residual risk:

• Single-maintainer project; independent review is limited.

Claim 2: Changes are checked by automated quality gates

Evidence:

• Lint, typecheck, test, coverage, build, dist verification, structure checks, docs build, license checks, security checks, and release verification scripts exist.
• Local audit ran core validation successfully, except documented follow-up gaps.

Residual risk:

• Required status checks need repository settings confirmation.
• Mutation-nightly currently has a type-only file false failure.
• Docs accessibility check can flake due to browser connection closure.

Claim 3: Release artifacts can be verified

Evidence:

• Release assets include checksums and SBOM.
• npm provenance and artifact attestation workflows are documented.
• Install scripts verify checksums.

Residual risk:

• Independent reproducible binary builds are not yet proven.

Claim 4: Security posture is actively maintained

Evidence:

• Security disclosure process exists.
• CodeQL, gitleaks, dependency review, OSV, Trivy, SBOM, and Scorecard evidence are present in workflows and docs.

Residual risk:

• Private vulnerability reporting and sensitive-data scanning settings require maintainer confirmation.
• Plugins are explicitly documented as trusted-code execution in v1; runtime sandboxing is optional future hardening.