CGB-1 · 6 controls
Sensitivity & Redaction
Credentials, personal data and regulated identifiers must never cross the trust boundary. Detection, redaction and the guarantees around them.
CIS Benchmarks define what a hardened server is. The Context Governance Benchmark defines what a governed context pipeline is: 32 measurable, tool-neutral controls across 6 domains, scored into four maturity grades. Citable by security teams, procurement and press — free under CC-BY 4.0.
Status: v1.0-draft, pre-review. The catalog is published and open for feedback; v1.0-final requires ≥ 3 named external reviewers. Until then, do not cite it as a released standard — cite the draft.
Each control states a requirement, why it matters, a concrete measurement method, and a level: Basic (12 controls — the floor), Hardened (15 — engineering rigor for customer or regulated data) or Audited (5 — third-party-verifiable assurance).
CGB-1 · 6 controls
Credentials, personal data and regulated identifiers must never cross the trust boundary. Detection, redaction and the guarantees around them.
CGB-2 · 5 controls
For any model interaction: what entered the context, where did it come from, has it been altered? Source attribution, transformation disclosure, tamper evidence.
CGB-3 · 5 controls
One prompt fans out into many tool calls and sub-agents. Limits, attribution and stopping runaway consumption before the invoice.
CGB-4 · 6 controls
Governance claims are only as strong as the records behind them. What gets logged, how it is protected, and whether a third party can verify it.
CGB-5 · 5 controls
What may an agent reach, on whose authority? Filesystem, command execution, network and tool-surface boundaries — assistant, not unaudited root shell.
CGB-6 · 5 controls
Caches, session stores, long-term memory, shared knowledge: how accumulated state is bounded, expired, deleted and kept honest over time.
Controls score Met (1.0), Partial (0.5, gap described) or Not met (0). A level's score is points over applicable controls. The grade is the highest threshold the pipeline clears — below C1 it is simply ungraded.
Foundational
Basic ≥ 75%
Managed
Basic ≥ 90% and Hardened ≥ 50%
Hardened
Basic = 100%, Hardened ≥ 80%, Audited ≥ 40%, every Met control links evidence
Audited
Basic = 100%, Hardened = 100%, Audited ≥ 80%, independently verified
From C3 upward, every Met claim links evidence a reviewer can open. From C4, the assessment itself is independently verified — self-assessments stop at C3 by design.
The spec is tool-neutral; this part is not. LeanCTX self-assesses against v1.0-draft at C2 — Managed: Basic 96% · Hardened 80% · Audited 50%. Where a claim could not be hard-verified, the control is graded down, not up.
Published gaps include CGB-1.4 (fail-closed redaction coverage is conventional, not structurally proven by a CI gate) and several Audited-level controls that await third-party verification. The full per-control findings — including every Partial and Not met — are in the public self-assessment.
Assess your own setup: lean-ctx policy coverage --benchmark cgb
statically checks your resolved policy pack against the testable controls — synthetic
fixtures, not pattern-name trust.
Control IDs are permanent and never reused. Substantive changes go through an RFC-light process with a 14-day comment window and recorded dissent. The catalog is revised annually; drafts are always labelled. License: CC-BY 4.0.
Review board — open call. v1.0-final ships once ≥ 3 named external reviewers (security, compliance or platform-engineering practitioners, no single-vendor commercial stake) have worked through every domain. Reviewers are named on the released spec. Volunteer via an issue →
A versioned, tool-neutral catalog of 32 measurable controls across 6 domains (sensitivity & redaction, provenance, budget control, audit & evidence, access scoping, lifecycle & retention) that defines what a governed context pipeline is — the way CIS Benchmarks define what a hardened server is. It is published under CC-BY 4.0 and scored into four maturity grades, C1 to C4.
LeanCTX maintainers edit the spec, but the controls are deliberately tool-neutral: no LeanCTX concepts appear in any control, a neutrality linter enforces that in CI, and any vendor or in-house pipeline can self-assess. LeanCTX publishes its own self-assessment as a separate document — including the gaps.
Against v1.0-draft, LeanCTX self-assesses at C2 — Managed (Basic 96%, Hardened 80%, Audited 50%), with the gaps published: among them, fail-closed redaction coverage is conventional rather than structurally proven, and several Audited-level controls need third-party verification. A perfect self-score would say more about the assessment than about the product.
No — v1.0-draft is published and open for review. The release becomes v1.0-final once at least three named external reviewers (security, compliance or platform-engineering practitioners) have worked through every domain. Until then, assessments must cite the draft status. Want to be a reviewer? Open an issue in the spec repository.
Clone the spec, work through the 32 controls with the assessment template, and grade each control Met, Partial, Not met or N/A using its stated measurement method. LeanCTX users can automate part of it: lean-ctx policy coverage --benchmark cgb statically checks the resolved policy pack against the testable controls and prints per-control results.
Read the spec, assess your pipeline, file issues — or see how LeanCTX implements the controls locally, free forever. CGB defines the controls; the Open Context Protocol defines the wire format; the compliance mappings connect both to EU AI Act, ISO 42001 and SOC 2.