SBOM and Supply Chain¶
Supply-chain visibility is a repository maintenance concern, so SBOM helpers
live in bijux-canon-dev instead of being duplicated by each package.
The point is not just compliance. The point is to keep dependency and build provenance explainable at repository level without smearing that burden across every product package.
These maintainer pages should read like explicit operational memory for repository-health work. They are strongest when they expose automation intent, package impact, and repository policy without pretending that CI logs are documentation.
Visual Summary¶
flowchart RL
page["SBOM and Supply Chain<br/>clarifies: explain automation | see repository-health scope | review package impact"]
classDef page fill:#dbeafe,stroke:#1d4ed8,color:#1e3a8a,stroke-width:2px;
classDef positive fill:#dcfce7,stroke:#16a34a,color:#14532d;
classDef caution fill:#fee2e2,stroke:#dc2626,color:#7f1d1d;
classDef anchor fill:#ede9fe,stroke:#7c3aed,color:#4c1d95;
classDef action fill:#fef3c7,stroke:#d97706,color:#7c2d12;
detail1["less CI archaeology"]
detail1 --> page
detail2["quality gates"]
detail2 --> page
detail3["security gates"]
detail3 --> page
detail4["release support"]
detail4 --> page
detail5["schema integrity"]
detail5 --> page
detail6["supply-chain visibility"]
detail6 --> page
detail7["package-aware automation"]
detail7 --> page
detail8["release clarity"]
detail8 --> page
detail9["package consistency"]
detail9 --> page
next1["open the relevant helper module or test after using this page to orient yourself"]
page --> next1
next2["return to repository handbook pages when the maintainer issue turns out to be root policy instead"]
page --> next2
next3["move to product package docs if the question is user-facing behavior rather than repository health"]
page --> next3
class page page;
class detail1,detail2,detail3,detail4,detail5,detail6,detail7,detail8,detail9 anchor;
class next1,next2,next3 action;
Current Surfaces¶
sbom/requirements_writer.pytests/test_sbom_requirements_writer.py- shared dependency metadata in package
pyproject.tomlfiles
Concrete Anchors¶
packages/bijux-canon-dev/src/bijux_canon_devfor maintainer helperspackages/bijux-canon-dev/testsfor executable maintenance proofapis/and root workflows for repository-level integration points
Use This Page When¶
- you are changing repository automation, validation, or release support
- you need maintainer-only context that should not live in product package docs
- you are reviewing CI, schema drift, or supply-chain behavior
Decision Rule¶
Use SBOM and Supply Chain to decide whether a change belongs to maintainer automation or to a product package contract. If the change would affect end-user behavior directly, this page should push the review back toward the owning product package instead of letting maintainer scope sprawl.
What This Page Answers¶
- which repository maintenance concern this page explains
- which maintainer modules or tests support that concern
- what a reviewer should confirm before changing repository automation
Reviewer Lens¶
- compare the described maintainer behavior with the actual helper modules and tests
- check that maintainer-only guidance has not leaked into product-facing pages
- confirm that repository automation still names its package impact explicitly
Next Checks¶
- move to product package docs if the question is user-facing behavior rather than repository health
- open the relevant helper module or test after using this page to orient yourself
- return to repository handbook pages when the maintainer issue turns out to be root policy instead
Honesty Boundary¶
This section can describe maintainer automation and repository health work, but it should never imply that maintainer tooling is part of the end-user product surface. It also should not pretend that hidden scripts count as documentation just because CI happens to run them.
Purpose¶
This page explains the home for supply-chain oriented repository tooling.
Stability¶
Keep it aligned with the checked-in SBOM helpers and tests.