ossf / ossf/tac

Proposal for discussion: a standard "AI authorship" attestation predicate for AI-generated code provenance

Open
#628 6 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Dominant language
No language data
Stars
152
Forks
86
Avg merge
5d 14h
Merged PRs (30d)
9

Description

Summary

As AI- and agent-generated code enters software supply chains, existing provenance (SLSA build provenance, commit signing) does not capture how an artifact was produced by an AI pipeline: human-vs-AI authorship, the model, the prompt fingerprint, the acceptance contract that was checked, and the human sign-offs.

Some projects are responding by banning AI contributions outright for lack of provenance — e.g. QEMU's contribution policy, and NetBSD treating LLM output as presumed-tainted. A neutral, verifiable attestation format could let projects govern AI contributions instead of banning them.

This issue shares an early approach with the OpenSSF community to gather feedback, spark discussion, and find sensible next steps.

Related work

The openfab/generation predicate builds on existing supply-chain provenance: in-toto attestations and DSSE, SLSA build provenance,SPDX/CycloneDX SBOMs, and the TODO Group's Agentic AI working group on AI provenance. The gap it targets is the missing piece — AI-vs-human authorship plus the model/prompt/acceptance context, as a first-class signed predicate.

A concrete starting point

OpenFab — Apache-2.0 and vendor-neutral — has defined a draft in-toto predicate, openfab/generation, as a basis for discussion:

Carried in a DSSE-signed in-toto Statement and bound to the artifact's file digests, the predicate records:

  • per-file / per-range human-vs-AI authorship
  • the model and prompt fingerprint (a sha256, not the prompt text)
  • the embedded acceptance contract — the exact checks — so verification is
    forge-agnostic and works offline
  • N-of-M human sign-offs (a behavioral gate)

It is positioned as a sibling to SLSA provenance, not a part of it.

Question for the TAC

Is there interest in an "AI authorship / AI-BOM" attestation predicate as a community-governed standard? The predicate design and the threat/abuse model that OpenFab addresses can be presented on request.

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

Research direction

Start by reviewing the linked openfab/generation predicate specification and the Open-fab reference implementation, then compare its scope with in-toto, DSSE, SLSA, SPDX, and CycloneDX. The issue is a request for community feedback rather than a defined code change; completion would require an agreed next step from the TAC.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Assessment

Domain
devops, security
Issue type
Feature
Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Activity status
Active
Clarity
Needs clarification
Newbie friendliness
28/100

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.