Commit Graph

3 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
null 063b715c33 feat(docs): two markers for entries that do not apply everywhere
This tree is copied into every project and some of what it carries will not
apply to all of them. Rather than several templates, or scaffold profiles the
website's conformance reader would have to know about before it could tell a
legitimately-absent file from a missing one, entries say so inline.

Two markers, on axes that are deliberately not merged:

  applicability -- *(only for a deployed service)*, *(only where money moves)*,
                   *(only where there are accounts)*. Does this project have to
                   do this at all?
  provenance    -- *(precautionary)*. Was the rule earned here, or borrowed?

They are independent, and one word cannot say both. Rate limiting is
universally applicable and has never bitten us. Money flowing backwards applies
only to projects that take money and is the most common defect in the audits it
came from. Applicability tells a reader whether to keep a rule; provenance tells
them whether to argue with it.

The instruction that travels with the marker is ClaudeQAPlan.md's rule about
passes, generalised: if it does not apply, delete it. A pass that never applies
is noise; a pass that is always skipped is a lie -- and so is a checklist row,
and so is a whole document. Deleting is safe because DOC_TRUST_MAP.md is the
trust map: what a project keeps is what it meant to keep.

Applied where it was already true: the authorisation group is conditional on
having accounts, and the header/TLS and test-environment rows on being a
deployed service. A library was being told it lacked a CSP.

closes #1

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-17 22:55:56 -05:00
null 9ab57f6c72 feat(security): ten standing checks the list did not have
Grep across docs/** found zero mentions of security headers, token storage,
account enumeration, audit trail, test environment or rate limiting. The
standing list had four entries and stopped at the boundary of the repository.

Grouped by the question each group answers rather than listed flat, because the
grouping is the argument:

- Authorisation, the three questions login does not answer. Logged-out callers
  refused, objects and lists scoped to the caller, privileged routes checking a
  role. Login is the front door; every room inside needs its own lock.
- What the browser is handed. No secret in the built bundle, session tokens in
  HttpOnly cookies rather than localStorage, a CSP and a frame policy with
  nothing on plain HTTP.
- What a stranger can learn or exhaust. Responses that do not confirm whether an
  account exists, and *(precautionary)* rate limits on authentication and on
  anything costing money per request.
- The compliance bar, which is not the launch bar: a record of who changed what
  and when, and an environment that is not production to test against. Called
  out as a different bar on purpose -- the rest of the list gets a release out
  of the door, those two get it through the first compliance review.

Each entry says what it proves, per this file's own rule that a check whose
purpose is unstated gets skipped the first time it is inconvenient.

closes #4

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-17 22:54:48 -05:00
null 6965915dbd chore(repo): put the template under version control
The basis for every project here was itself unversioned: no .git, no remote,
no history. Changes to it had no diff and no revert, and two of its own guards
could not run at all -- doc-claims.sh and doc-triggers.py both read git
history, so the script written to catch documentation drift could not be run
against the documents that define drift.

This is the tree as it stands, including work that until now existed only as
loose files on disk: WORK_CYCLE.md, TOOLS.md, the Portainer image-line fix in
deploy.py, the status vocabulary corrected to the four words the conformance
checker actually enforces, the Exempt: mechanism documented, and the Forgejo
instance named in README.md.

secrets.sh --tracked reports one candidate, migrate.sh:480. It is the comment
documenting the three Postgres credential shapes that script redacts, with
literal placeholders, and it is left alone deliberately: GUARDS.md section 2
is that a source-grep guard must tell code from the comment about code, and
deleting an explanation to quiet a scanner is the failure it names.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-17 22:44:26 -05:00