Correct public evidence drift after security scan (#5)

Correct public evidence drift after security scan

- synchronize CI and governance evidence across public docs
- separate historical validation runs from current repository state
- clarify static review evidence without overstating browser/manual validation
- keep bounded public claims and defensive validation guardrails aligned

Author: aisamuraiagent-source

.github/workflows/static-validation.yml

@@ -38,13 +38,15 @@ jobs:
             "AGENTS.md"
             "README.md"
             "SECURITY.md"
+            ".gitignore"
             "docs/evidence/01_repository_inventory.md"
             "docs/evidence/02_security_triage.md"
             "docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md"
             "docs/remediation/remediation_plan.md"
             "docs/threat-model/threat_model.md"
             "docs/validation/validation_report.md"
             "docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md"
+            "docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md"
           )
 
           for file in "${required_files[@]}"; do

PATCH_VERIFICATION_RESULT.md

@@ -16,13 +16,13 @@ A renderizacao foi alterada para `textContent`, mantendo o fluxo local da aplica
 - A aplicacao deve permanecer funcional.
 - O escopo deve permanecer local, proprio e defensivo.
 
-## Resultado esperado
+## Resultado da revisao estatica
 
-Apos o patch, a area de saida deve exibir exatamente o texto informado pelo usuario, sem criar elementos HTML a partir da entrada.
+A revisao estatica confirmou que o codigo usa `textContent` para renderizar texto puro, sem sink de criacao de elementos HTML a partir da entrada.
 
 ## Limites do teste
 
-Esta verificacao e textual e local. Nao houve varredura, acesso a rede, exploracao real, teste contra terceiros, coleta de credenciais ou uso de dados sensiveis.
+Esta verificacao e estatica, textual e local. Nao houve varredura, acesso a rede, exploracao real, teste contra terceiros, coleta de credenciais ou uso de dados sensiveis.
 
 ## Confirmacao de escopo
 

PUBLIC_REMEDIATION_SUMMARY.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Este laboratorio demonstra um ciclo defensivo minimo:
 1. Identificacao de padrao inseguro em codigo proprio.
 2. Documentacao do risco.
 3. Planejamento de patch.
-4. Verificacao esperada.
+4. Verificacao local registrada.
 5. Preparacao de evidencia publica sanitizada.
 
 ## Achado
@@ -28,6 +28,6 @@ Usar `textContent` para renderizar texto puro.
 
 ## Status
 
-Remediacao concluida.
+Remediacao concluida e validada no escopo local.
 
-O patch substituiu a renderizacao insegura por renderizacao de texto puro. A verificacao prevista confirma que marcacoes HTML digitadas pelo usuario devem aparecer como texto literal, sem interpretacao pelo navegador.
+O patch substituiu a renderizacao insegura por renderizacao de texto puro. A evidencia atual registra que a aplicacao usa `textContent`, mantendo marcacoes HTML digitadas pelo usuario como texto literal, sem interpretacao pelo navegador.

README.md

@@ -48,13 +48,15 @@ Current controls observed:
 - user input rendered through `textContent` in `app.js`
 - defensive AI operating rules documented in `AGENTS.md`
 - repository security policy documented in `SECURITY.md`
+- static validation workflow documented in `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
+- repository hygiene guardrails documented in `.gitignore`
 
 Primary risks documented:
 
 - future changes could reintroduce `innerHTML` or unsafe dynamic rendering
 - public documentation could overclaim OpenAI affiliation, Daybreak access, or security coverage
 - deployment hardening would need review if the app is later hosted publicly
-- no automated CI validation exists yet
+- static CI validation exists and must stay synchronized with the evidence package
 - evidence must stay synchronized with the actual repository files
 
 ## Evidence Package
@@ -68,6 +70,12 @@ Evidence files are stored under `docs/`:
 - `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md`
 - `docs/validation/validation_report.md`
 - `docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md`
+- `docs/governance/main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md`
+
+Repository guardrail files:
+
+- `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
+- `.gitignore`
 
 ## Local Validation
 

SECURITY_REVIEW.md

@@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
 # SECURITY_REVIEW.md
 
-## Revisao defensiva inicial
+## Revisao defensiva inicial historica
 
 ### Escopo
 
 Aplicacao local propria composta por HTML, CSS e JavaScript.
 
 ### Achado
 
-O arquivo `app.js` usa `innerHTML` para renderizar entrada controlada pelo usuario.
+Antes da remediacao, o arquivo `app.js` usava `innerHTML` para renderizar entrada controlada pelo usuario.
 
 ### Classificacao
 
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Em uma aplicacao real, esse padrao pode permitir injecao de HTML/script no DOM c
 
 ### Evidencia
 
-Trecho observado:
+Trecho historico observado antes do patch:
 
 ```js
 output.innerHTML = value;
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ output.innerHTML = value;
 
 Substituir `innerHTML` por `textContent` quando o objetivo for exibir texto puro.
 
+### Estado atual
+
+O estado atual do runtime usa `textContent` para renderizar a entrada como texto puro. Este arquivo permanece como registro historico do achado inicial.
+
 ### Limites
 
 Este laboratorio nao executa exploracao contra terceiros.

docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md

@@ -70,6 +70,6 @@ No affiliation with OpenAI is claimed. No acceptance, access, or authorization f
 
 ## Next Improvements
 
-- add CI validation
+- keep CI validation aligned with repository evidence and branch protection
 - add reviewed deployment headers if publicly hosted
 - add signed release notes after merge

docs/evidence/01_repository_inventory.md

@@ -12,9 +12,19 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 
 ```text
 .
+├── .github/
+│   └── workflows/
+│       └── static-validation.yml
+├── .gitignore
 ├── AGENTS.md
+├── CASE_STUDY.md
+├── PATCH_PLAN.md
+├── PATCH_VERIFICATION_RESULT.md
+├── PUBLIC_REMEDIATION_SUMMARY.md
 ├── README.md
 ├── SECURITY.md
+├── SECURITY_REVIEW.md
+├── VERIFICATION_PLAN.md
 ├── app.js
 ├── index.html
 ├── styles.css
@@ -24,6 +34,8 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
     ├── evidence/
     │   ├── 01_repository_inventory.md
     │   └── 02_security_triage.md
+    ├── governance/
+    │   └── main_branch_ruleset_evidence.md
     ├── remediation/
     │   ├── human_approval_checklist.md
     │   └── remediation_plan.md
@@ -44,7 +56,10 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 | `styles.css` | Visual styling. | No runtime security logic. |
 | `AGENTS.md` | Defensive operating rules for AI-assisted work. | Defines allowed and prohibited actions. |
 | `SECURITY.md` | Security policy. | Defines scope, reporting, and public-lab limits. |
-| `docs/` | Evidence package. | Contains inventory, threat model, triage, remediation plan, checklist, validation report, and candidate summary. |
+| `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` | Static defensive validation workflow. | Runs file inventory, JavaScript syntax, unsafe rendering, secret-pattern, hygiene, and bounded-claim checks. |
+| `.gitignore` | Repository hygiene guardrails. | Blocks local deployment state, generated archives, logs, and editor artifacts. |
+| Root remediation docs | Historical remediation evidence. | Keep temporal wording clear so legacy findings are not confused with current runtime state. |
+| `docs/` | Evidence package. | Contains inventory, threat model, triage, remediation, validation, governance, and candidate evidence. |
 
 ## Technologies Used
 
@@ -57,6 +72,7 @@ This repository contains a minimal static web security lab plus defensive docume
 
 - `index.html`
 - `app.js`
+- `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` for repository validation on pull requests, pushes to `main`, and manual workflow dispatch
 
 ## Dependencies Identified
 

docs/evidence/02_security_triage.md

@@ -8,10 +8,10 @@ Mode: defensive, sanitized, no external scanning
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
 | R-001 | Dynamic rendering | Future edits could replace `textContent` with raw HTML rendering. | User-controlled text could render as executable markup if unsafe patterns are introduced later. | Medium | Medium | Current `app.js` writes output through `output.textContent = value;`. | Preserve `textContent`; review any future `innerHTML`, `outerHTML`, or `insertAdjacentHTML` use. | Remediated control present; monitor for regression. |
 | R-002 | Public narrative | Documentation could overclaim Daybreak access, OpenAI affiliation, or production security coverage. | Misleading public evidence and reputational risk. | Medium | Medium | README and candidate summary require bounded language. | Use `aligned with Daybreak concepts`, `public sanitized lab`, and `human-reviewed remediation`; do not claim affiliation or acceptance. | Corrected. |
-| R-003 | Validation | No automated CI workflow exists. | Regressions in JavaScript syntax, rendering pattern, or documentation accuracy may go unnoticed. | Medium | Low/Medium | No CI config or package manifest is present. | Add lightweight CI later using `node --check app.js` and static grep checks. | Planned. |
+| R-003 | Validation | Static CI workflow must remain aligned with repository evidence. | Regressions in JavaScript syntax, rendering pattern, hygiene, or bounded public claims may go unnoticed if the workflow drifts or is disabled. | Medium | Low/Medium | `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` is present and runs static defensive checks. | Keep the workflow required for review and update docs whenever validation scope changes. | Guardrail present; monitor for drift. |
 | R-004 | Deployment hardening | If the app is publicly hosted later, headers and CSP are not yet defined in repo. | Browser hardening would depend on the hosting platform defaults. | Medium | Low/Medium | No deployment config exists in the reviewed public scope. | Add reviewed static hosting config only after deployment target is chosen. | Deferred. |
 | R-005 | Evidence drift | Evidence files can describe files or risks that are not present in the repository. | Audit trail becomes unreliable. | Medium | Medium | Prior PR draft referenced unrelated content-stack files, ZIP archives, Netlify state, and `localStorage`. | Keep inventory tied to actual repository files; update evidence whenever repo structure changes. | Corrected in this pass. |
-| R-006 | Secret hygiene | Future commits could accidentally include tokens, private keys, local state, or archives. | Public leakage of sensitive or environment-specific data. | Low/Medium | Medium | Current reviewed scope does not require secrets. | Add `.gitignore`; run secret-pattern scan before merge. | Guardrail added/planned. |
+| R-006 | Secret hygiene | Future commits could accidentally include tokens, private keys, local state, or archives. | Public leakage of sensitive or environment-specific data. | Low/Medium | Medium | Current reviewed scope does not require secrets; `.gitignore` blocks common local state and generated artifacts. | Preserve `.gitignore`; run secret-pattern scan before merge. | Guardrail present; monitor for drift. |
 
 ## Prioritization
 
@@ -20,5 +20,5 @@ Highest practical priority before merge:
 1. Keep the evidence package synchronized with the actual repository.
 2. Preserve safe rendering through `textContent`.
 3. Keep public claims bounded and non-affiliated.
-4. Add `.gitignore` guardrails for local state and generated archives.
-5. Add lightweight CI in a later PR.
+4. Preserve `.gitignore` guardrails for local state and generated archives.
+5. Keep the static CI workflow aligned with the evidence package.

docs/remediation/remediation_plan.md

@@ -21,8 +21,9 @@ This correction pass fixes evidence drift: the previous PR draft described unrel
 | Correct validation report. | `docs/validation/validation_report.md` | Separates verified remote review from recommended local checks. |
 | Correct human approval checklist. | `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md` | Adds merge controls tied to this repository. |
 | Correct Daybreak candidate summary. | `docs/daybreak-application/daybreak_candidate_summary.md` | Keeps public narrative bounded and accurate. |
-| Remove unrelated content-stack documentation from this PR. | `docs/STACK_CRIACAO_CONTEUDO.md` | Eliminates portfolio noise and evidence drift. |
+| Remove unrelated content-stack references from public evidence. | Repository evidence docs | Eliminates portfolio noise and evidence drift. |
 | Add ignore guardrails for future local state and generated archives. | `.gitignore` | Reduces accidental publication risk. |
+| Add static defensive validation workflow. | `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` | Reduces regression risk for syntax, unsafe rendering, secret-pattern, hygiene, and bounded-claim checks. |
 
 ## Existing Runtime Remediation
 
@@ -38,17 +39,17 @@ This is the central remediation evidence for the original unsafe rendering class
 
 These actions are deferred because they affect release behavior or require follow-up validation:
 
-- add GitHub Actions CI
 - add deployment config and security headers after a hosting target is chosen
 - add CSP after compatibility review
 - add automated documentation path validation
 - add signed release notes
+- periodically verify GitHub ruleset enforcement against the tracked static validation workflow
 
 ## Recommended Next Remediation
 
 1. Run the local validation commands from `docs/validation/validation_report.md`.
-2. Confirm the PR diff contains only intended lab evidence and guardrail files.
-3. Convert the PR from draft to ready for review after validation is recorded.
+2. Confirm the static validation workflow passes on the pull request.
+3. Confirm the PR diff contains only intended lab evidence and guardrail files.
 4. Merge through the protected branch flow, not by direct push to `main`.
 
 ## Safety Invariants

docs/threat-model/threat_model.md

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ Outputs:
 | Future code change replaces `textContent` with raw HTML rendering. | Medium | Preserve `textContent`; review all `innerHTML`, `outerHTML`, and `insertAdjacentHTML` usage. |
 | Public evidence describes files that are not present in the repository. | Medium | Keep inventory and validation tied to actual repository state. |
 | Documentation implies OpenAI affiliation, Daybreak acceptance, or production-grade security coverage. | Medium | Use bounded public wording and explicit limitations. |
-| No automated CI checks prevent rendering-pattern regression. | Low/Medium | Add lightweight CI in a later PR. |
+| Static CI validation drifts from repository evidence or is not enforced. | Low/Medium | Keep `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml` aligned with the evidence package and verify branch ruleset enforcement. |
 | Future public hosting lacks reviewed security headers or CSP. | Low/Medium | Add deployment config after hosting target is chosen. |
 | Secrets or local state are accidentally committed in future work. | Medium | Add `.gitignore` guardrails and run secret-pattern scans before merge. |
 
@@ -75,13 +75,14 @@ These are described conceptually for defense only.
 - no package manager dependencies
 - no external API calls in app code
 - user input rendered through `output.textContent = value;`
+- static defensive validation workflow in `.github/workflows/static-validation.yml`
 - defensive operating rules in `AGENTS.md`
 - defensive-only security policy in `SECURITY.md`
 - human approval checklist in `docs/remediation/human_approval_checklist.md`
 
 ## Gaps
 
-- no automated CI validation
+- live GitHub ruleset enforcement must be periodically verified against the tracked workflow
 - no deployment hardening config yet
 - no automated documentation path validation
 - no signed release notes
@@ -92,6 +93,6 @@ These are described conceptually for defense only.
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | High | A change would expose secrets, execute untrusted script from user input, or publish private operational data. | Raw user input rendered as executable HTML in a public deployment. |
 | Medium | A change could mislead reviewers, expose local state, or reintroduce unsafe rendering. | Evidence references unrelated files or `innerHTML` is reintroduced. |
-| Low | A weakness reduces repeatability or hardening but has limited impact in this static local-first lab. | Missing CI or missing deployment headers before a deployment exists. |
+| Low | A weakness reduces repeatability or hardening but has limited impact in this static local-first lab. | CI workflow drift or missing deployment headers before a deployment exists. |
 
 No Critical risk is claimed from the current bounded review because there is no backend, no authentication boundary, no secrets intentionally used by the app, and no external system was tested.