Security and Safety¶

Security review in bijux-canon-ingest should focus on the package's real boundary surfaces and outputs.

This page keeps safety work concrete. A useful security discussion starts from the actual interfaces, artifacts, and authority the package holds, not from generic caution language detached from the codebase.

Treat the operations pages for bijux-canon-ingest as the package's explicit operating memory. They should make common tasks repeatable without relearning the workflow from logs or oral history.

Visual Summary¶

graph TD
    A[Security and Safety] --> B[Threat and misuse surface]
    B --> C[Input and artifact safeguards]
    C --> D[Dependency and policy checks]
    D --> E[Security validation gates]
    E --> F[Safe operational posture]

Review Anchors¶

CLI entrypoint in src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces/cli/entrypoint.py
HTTP boundaries under src/bijux_canon_ingest/interfaces
configuration modules under src/bijux_canon_ingest/config

Safety Rule¶

Any change that broadens package authority should update docs, tests, and release notes together.

Concrete Anchors¶

packages/bijux-canon-ingest/pyproject.toml for package metadata
packages/bijux-canon-ingest/README.md for local package framing
packages/bijux-canon-ingest/tests for executable operational backstops

Use This Page When¶

you are installing, running, diagnosing, or releasing the package
you need repeatable operational anchors rather than architectural framing
you are responding to package behavior in local work, CI, or incident pressure

Decision Rule¶

Use Security and Safety to decide whether a maintainer can repeat the package workflow from checked-in assets instead of memory. If a step works only because someone already knows the trick, the workflow is not documented clearly enough yet.

What This Page Answers¶

how bijux-canon-ingest is installed, run, diagnosed, and released in practice
which checked-in files and tests anchor the operational story
where a maintainer should look first when the package behaves differently

Reviewer Lens¶

verify that setup, workflow, and release statements still match package metadata and current commands
check that operational guidance still points at real diagnostics and validation paths
confirm that maintainer advice still works under current local and CI expectations

Honesty Boundary¶

This page explains how bijux-canon-ingest is expected to be operated, but it does not replace package metadata, actual runtime behavior, or validation in a real environment. A workflow is only trustworthy if a maintainer can still repeat it from the checked-in assets named here.

Next Checks¶

move to interfaces when the operational path depends on a specific surface contract
move to quality when the question becomes whether the workflow is sufficiently proven
move back to architecture when operational complexity suggests a structural problem

Purpose¶

This page keeps security review grounded in concrete package seams.

Stability¶

Keep it aligned with the package interfaces and operational risk profile.