Skip to content
Draft
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
340ad1d
docs: add working with controls tutorial
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
c05edc7
docs: address review comments on working with controls tutorial
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
eb257bc
docs: add mock screenshots for controls compliance tutorial
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
c1e47f3
docs: add controls listing screenshot with versioning to tutorial
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
39ab9b0
docs: fix policy YAML to use controls key and correct schema URL
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
df0f3c6
docs: add catalog-level coverage status indicators to controls tutorial
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
3558415
docs: address PR feedback on screenshots and policy enforcement wording
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
e3ccac3
docs: remove remaining evidenced/unevidenced language from tutorial body
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
75e25fd
docs: remove admission controller mention, automated evaluation promi…
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
84c24fa
docs: add decisions tab with screenshot, mention control versioning, …
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
714eb7a
docs: remove CLI version requirement from prerequisites
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
7600293
docs: use repo instead of flow in coverage view; update evidence exam…
pbeckham Apr 16, 2026
ffb2b6b
docs: add in-development banner to controls tutorial
pbeckham Apr 21, 2026
f687c02
docs: add kosli assert control (PEP) and PDP/PEP framing to controls …
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
7e35a78
docs: add artifact scoping to decision and assert control commands
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
3d041f6
docs: add end-to-end pipeline flow sequence diagram to controls tutorial
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
3a656f0
docs: replace kosli assert control with kosli assert artifact --envir…
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
7c8c431
docs: change PDP/PEP diagram notes to Note right of P
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
b836fb7
docs: update environment policy schema URL to docs.kosli.com/schemas/…
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
7ec36e2
docs: rename control code to control identifier and --code flag to --…
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
b35b360
docs: clarify Active and Stale control status thresholds to 28 days
pbeckham Apr 23, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions config/navigation.json
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@
"tutorials/linking_trails_across_branches"
]
},
{
"group": "Controls",
"pages": [
"tutorials/working_with_controls"
]
},
{
"group": "Repositories",
"pages": [
Expand Down
Comment thread
pbeckham marked this conversation as resolved.
Comment thread
pbeckham marked this conversation as resolved.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Binary file added images/tutorials/controls-decisions.png
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
Binary file added images/tutorials/controls-list.png
Comment thread
pbeckham marked this conversation as resolved.
Loading
Sorry, something went wrong. Reload?
Sorry, we cannot display this file.
Sorry, this file is invalid so it cannot be displayed.
285 changes: 285 additions & 0 deletions tutorials/working_with_controls.mdx
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,285 @@
---
title: "Working with controls"
description: "Learn how to define controls in Kosli, record decisions against them, and track compliance across your software delivery process."
---

<Info>
**This feature is in development.** This documentation is published ahead of release to support feedback and discussion — the UI, CLI flags, and YAML schema described here are illustrative and subject to change. If you have questions or comments, please reach out to the Kosli team.
</Info>

Controls in Kosli represent the named, identifiable governance requirements that your organisation enforces across software delivery — things like "source code review", "no hard-coded credentials", or "vulnerability scan passed". They are the things auditors ask about, the things compliance teams track, and the things governance platform engineers build automation around.

Without controls as first-class entities, Kosli can tell you _that_ an attestation was made, but not _which governance requirement it satisfies_. Controls close that gap: they connect the evidence you collect in pipelines to the specific requirements that auditors, control owners, and regulators care about.

This tutorial covers how to:

- Define a control library in Kosli that mirrors your existing controls catalog
- Record decision outcomes against controls from your pipelines
- Reference controls in environment policies
- View control compliance across deployments

## Prerequisites

- [Install Kosli CLI](/getting_started/install).
- [Get a Kosli API token](/getting_started/service-accounts).
- Have at least one [Flow](/getting_started/flows) and [Trail](/getting_started/trails) already created.

## Setup

```bash
export KOSLI_ORG=<your-org>
export KOSLI_API_TOKEN=<your-api-token>
```

## Understanding controls

Before creating controls, it helps to understand how they fit into the Kosli data model.

**Raw fact attestations** are the evidence you collect in pipelines — test results, vulnerability scans, pull request approvals. These are facts about what happened.

**Decisions** are the recorded outcomes of a Policy Decision Point (PDP) — the step in your process where a judgement is reached about a specific control: "control `RCTL-043` is satisfied for this artifact." A decision is an attestation that references a control, recorded at the point where the judgement is made — typically during a release or promotion step.

**Controls** are the named governance requirements that decisions are recorded against. They have a stable identity (the control identifier), a human-readable name, and an optional description and source link pointing back to your GRC system or policy document.

This separation matters: raw facts exist independently of controls. A JUnit test report is a fact. Whether that test report satisfies a "test coverage" control is a decision. The decision references the fact; the fact doesn't need to know about the control.

A Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) is where that decision is acted upon. `kosli assert artifact --environment` is the PEP — it checks that an artifact satisfies all requirements in the environment's policy, including any listed controls, and exits non-zero if it doesn't. Place it at the point in your pipeline where you want to gate progress on control compliance.

<Info>
Kosli holds a mirror to your existing control definitions — it does not replace your GRC system or ServiceNow instance. The control catalog in Kosli is a lightweight copy that enables querying and coverage visibility.
</Info>

## Creating a control

Navigate to **Controls** in the [Kosli app](https://app.kosli.com) sidebar and select **New control**. Provide a **control identifier**, a **name**, and optionally a description and a source URL pointing back to the authoritative definition in your GRC system or policy document.

You can also create controls via the CLI:

```bash
kosli create control \
--identifier RCTL-043 \
--name "Source code review" \
--description "All commits included in a release must have been reviewed by at least one person other than the author." \
--source-url https://your-grc-system.example.com/controls/RCTL-043
```

| Flag | Description |
|------|-------------|
| `--identifier` | **Required.** The control identifier (e.g. `RCTL-043`, `peer-review`, `vuln-scan-production`). Must be unique within your organisation. **Immutable once created** — to change a control identifier, archive the control and create a new one. |
| `--name` | **Required.** A human-readable label for the control (e.g. `Source code review`). Mutable — you can rename a control while keeping the same identifier. |
| `--description` | Optional. What the control does, in human-readable terms. |
| `--source-url` | Optional. URL back to the authoritative definition in your GRC system, ServiceNow, or policy document. |

<Tip>
Control identifiers are the stable identity that pipelines, environment policies, and reports reference. Choose identifiers that match how your organisation already refers to controls — for example, the identifiers in your ServiceNow or GRC system. If you use `RCTL-043` today, use exactly that.
</Tip>

### List your controls
Comment thread
pbeckham marked this conversation as resolved.

Navigate to **Controls** in the [Kosli app](https://app.kosli.com) sidebar to browse your full controls catalog. Each control shows its code, name, current version, and a **decision coverage indicator** that reflects the health of that control across your pipelines.

Control definitions are versioned: each time you update a control's name, description, or source URL, a new version is created. This matters for audits — decisions recorded against a control always reference the exact version of the definition that was current when the decision was made, so the audit trail is precise even as controls evolve over time.

| Status | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| **Active** | A passing decision has been recorded against this control within the last 28 days. |
| **Stale** | Decisions were recorded in the past but none in the last 28 days — pipelines may have stopped recording decisions against this control. |
| **No decisions** | This control exists in the catalog but no decision has ever been recorded against it. A dark control. |

<Frame>
<img src="/images/tutorials/controls-list.png" alt="Controls catalog showing Active, Stale, and No decisions coverage indicators alongside version badges, a View archived filter, and an expanded version history for RCTL-043" />
</Frame>

You can also list controls via the CLI:

```bash
kosli list controls
```

## Recording a decision against a control

A decision records the outcome of a PDP against a named control, scoped to a specific artifact. Use `--fingerprint` to identify the artifact the decision applies to — this is what allows `kosli assert artifact --environment` to later check that all required controls have passing decisions for that artifact specifically.

```bash
kosli attest decision \
--flow my-release-flow \
--trail my-release-trail \
--fingerprint "$ARTIFACT_FINGERPRINT" \
--control RCTL-043 \
--compliant true \
--name "source-code-review-decision" \
--description "All 14 commits in this release have been reviewed by a second developer."
```

| Flag | Description |
|------|-------------|
| `--control` | **Required.** The control identifier this decision is recorded against. |
| `--compliant` | **Required.** Whether the control is satisfied: `true` or `false`. |
| `--fingerprint` | The SHA256 fingerprint of the artifact this decision applies to. Scope decisions to an artifact so that assertions and environment policies can check compliance for that artifact specifically. Omit to record a trail-scoped decision instead. |
| `--artifact-type` | The artifact type (e.g. `docker`, `file`). Provide this with the artifact name/path as the command argument instead of `--fingerprint` to have Kosli calculate the fingerprint. |
| `--name` | The attestation slot name on the trail. |
| `--description` | Optional human-readable context for the decision. |
| `--attachments` | Optional evidence file(s) to attach (e.g. an evaluation report, a REGO policy output). |
Comment thread
pbeckham marked this conversation as resolved.
| `--user-data` | Optional path to a JSON file containing additional structured data to attach to the attestation. |

The decision attestation goes on a trail, like any other attestation. It affects trail compliance: a `--compliant false` decision makes the trail non-compliant. There are no restrictions on which flow or trail a decision can be recorded on — place it wherever makes sense in your process, typically at the point where the decision is actually being made (e.g. during a release preparation or promotion step).
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should there be any distinctions around how a decision attestation appears on a trail.

Can it be given a named slot?


<Info>
A decision records the outcome of a PDP. How the PDP is implemented — running `kosli evaluate`, executing a custom script, or using a third-party tool — is up to you. `kosli attest decision` records the outcome; it does not make the decision for you.
</Info>

### Attaching evidence to a decision

Evidence attached to a decision explains _why_ the decision was reached — not just that a control passed or failed, but what information was used to make that judgement. This is what auditors will ask for: the policy that was applied and the evaluation report that justified the outcome.

A natural source of evidence is a `kosli evaluate` report. `kosli evaluate` is a PDP: it runs a Rego policy against a trail's evidence and writes the result to its output, but always exits 0 — it has no enforcement logic. The example below evaluates a trail, captures the full JSON report, reads the allow/deny result from that output, and records it as a decision. See [Evaluate trails with OPA policies](/tutorials/evaluate_trails_with_opa) for a full walkthrough of `kosli evaluate`.

```bash
# Run the evaluation and save the full JSON report
# kosli evaluate always exits 0 — the result is in the JSON output
kosli evaluate trail "$TRAIL_NAME" \
--policy supply-chain-policy.rego \
--org "$KOSLI_ORG" \
--flow "$FLOW_NAME" \
--output json > eval-report.json

# Read the allow/deny result from the report
is_compliant=$(jq -r '.allow' eval-report.json)

# Extract violations as structured user-data
jq '{violations: .violations}' eval-report.json > eval-violations.json

# Record the decision, attaching the policy and evaluation report as evidence
kosli attest decision \
--flow "$FLOW_NAME" \
--trail "$TRAIL_NAME" \
--fingerprint "$ARTIFACT_FINGERPRINT" \
--control RCTL-1866 \
--compliant="$is_compliant" \
--name supply-chain-integrity-decision \
--attachments supply-chain-policy.rego,eval-report.json \
--user-data eval-violations.json
```

This creates a decision attestation with:
- **`--attachments`** containing the Rego policy (for reproducibility) and the full JSON evaluation report
- **`--user-data`** containing the violations, which appear in the Kosli UI as structured metadata on the attestation
- **`--compliant`** set directly from the evaluation result

## Asserting artifact compliance

`kosli assert artifact --environment` is the Policy Enforcement Point (PEP). It checks that an artifact satisfies all requirements in the environment's attached policy — including any controls listed under the `controls` key — and exits non-zero if it doesn't. Use it as a pipeline gate before promoting an artifact to an environment.

```bash
kosli assert artifact \
--fingerprint "$ARTIFACT_FINGERPRINT" \
--environment production
```

| Flag | Description |
|------|-------------|
| `--fingerprint` | The SHA256 fingerprint of the artifact to assert. |
| `--artifact-type` | The artifact type (e.g. `docker`, `file`). Provide this with the artifact name/path as the command argument instead of `--fingerprint` to have Kosli calculate the fingerprint. |
| `--environment` | **Required.** The Kosli environment whose attached policy the artifact is asserted against. |

If the artifact satisfies all policy requirements — including passing decisions for every listed control — the command exits 0. If not, the command exits non-zero and prints which requirements were not met, failing the pipeline step.

<Tip>
`kosli attest decision` is the PDP: it records a judgement about a control. `kosli assert artifact --environment` is the PEP: it enforces that judgement as part of the environment policy. Keep them in separate pipeline steps — the PDP step is where evidence is evaluated and the outcome is recorded; the PEP step is where the pipeline gates on that recorded outcome.
</Tip>

## End-to-end pipeline flow

The sequence below shows a single artifact moving through a build trail and a release trail, with the compliance decision made at release time and enforced by the release controller checking the environment policy.

```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
participant P as Pipeline
participant K as Kosli

rect rgb(220,235,255)
Note over P,K: Build trail — flow: my-app, trail: build-123

P->>K: "`kosli begin trail build-123 --flow my-app`"
P->>K: "`kosli attest pullrequest github --flow my-app --trail build-123`"
P->>K: "`kosli attest artifact artifact-a --artifact-type docker --flow my-app --trail build-123`"
end

rect rgb(255,235,215)
Note over P,K: Release trail — flow: my-release, trail: release-456

P->>K: "`kosli begin trail release-456 --flow my-release`"

Note right of P: 🔵 PDP — evaluate RCTL-043
P->>K: "`kosli evaluate trail release-456 --policy rctl-043.rego --flow my-release --output json`"
K-->>P: eval-report.json
P->>K: "`kosli attest decision --flow my-release --trail release-456 --fingerprint $FP_A --control RCTL-043 --compliant $IS_COMPLIANT --attachments eval-report.json`"
end

rect rgb(220,255,220)
Note over P,K: Release Controller

Note right of P: 🔴 PEP — assert artifact against environment policy
P->>K: "`kosli assert artifact --fingerprint $FP_A --environment production`"
K-->>P: exit 0
end
```

## Referencing controls in environment policies

Environment policies define the requirements an artifact must satisfy before it can run in a given environment. You can require that specific named controls have a passing decision recorded — not just that the trail is generally compliant. This is the key distinction: rather than relying on trail compliance as a catch-all, you can make individual controls explicit policy gates.

```yaml prod-policy.yaml
_schema: https://docs.kosli.com/schemas/policy/v1
artifacts:
provenance:
required: true
controls:
- RCTL-043
- RCTL-1866
```

With this policy in place, an artifact deployed to this environment will be marked **non-compliant** if a passing decision has not been recorded for each listed control on its trail. The artifact can still be deployed — Kosli records compliance state but does not block deployments by default. To gate deployments on compliance, use [`kosli assert`](/getting_started/enforce_policies) in your pipeline. This abstracts the policy from the specific tooling your pipelines use: instead of "has an attestation of type `snyk` with zero criticals", the policy expresses "control `RCTL-1866` has been satisfied" — and the decision attestation carries the evidence of how that judgement was reached.

For the complete policy syntax, including attestation requirements and exceptions, see the [Environment Policies](/getting_started/policies) page.

## Viewing control compliance

Navigate to **Controls** in the [Kosli app](https://app.kosli.com) and select a control to see its detail view. Each control has three tabs: **Decisions**, **Deployments**, and **Coverage**.

### Decisions

The Decisions tab is the default view. It lists every decision attestation recorded against this control across all flows and trails, with the artifact, flow, trail, environment, who recorded the decision, when, and whether the outcome was compliant or non-compliant. Each decision also shows which version of the control definition was in effect when it was recorded. Use the flow, environment, and outcome filters to narrow the list.

<Frame>
<img src="/images/tutorials/controls-decisions.png" alt="Decisions tab for RCTL-043 showing a list of decision attestations with artifact, flow, trail, environment, recorded-by, date, and compliant/non-compliant outcome" />
</Frame>

### Deployments

The Deployments tab shows where artifacts with decisions against this control have been deployed, with compliant/non-compliant status per deployment, filterable by repository, flow, and environment.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How do we get the correct list of environments that this Control should apply to for deployments and Coverage views?

Potential options

  1. Default filter to environments that have had a decision recorded for this Control (ever, in time range?).
  • Easy first attempt
  • Need to ensure this gives a realistic coverage (decision recorded ever would be consistent, but how do you remove from filter)
  1. Default filter to environments that have Control mentioned in environment policy.

  2. Add explicit mappings on Controls to environments they apply to that Customers should maintain.


<Frame>
<img src="/images/tutorials/controls-compliance-deployments.png" alt="Deployments tab for RCTL-043 showing deployments with compliant and non-compliant decisions" />
</Frame>

### Coverage

The Coverage tab shows the ratio of deployments where a decision was recorded vs. those where it was not. This is the key metric: controls without decisions are the blind spots that auditors will ask about. Use the environment filter to compare decision recording rates across staging and production.

<Frame>
<img src="/images/tutorials/controls-compliance-coverage.png" alt="Coverage tab for RCTL-043 showing decision recorded vs. no decision recorded deployments and 78% coverage rate" />
</Frame>

## What you've accomplished

You have learned how to define controls in Kosli, record decisions against them from pipelines using `kosli attest decision` as the PDP, enforce controls in environment policies, assert artifact compliance using `kosli assert artifact --environment` as the PEP, and view compliance across deployments.

Your controls catalog is now the bridge between the evidence Kosli collects and the requirements your auditors, control owners, and regulators care about. For each production change, you can now answer: "which of our controls have decisions recorded, and which don't?"

From here you can:

- Learn more about [environment policies](/getting_started/policies)
- Learn more about [attestations](/getting_started/attestations)
- [Evaluate trails with Rego policies](/tutorials/evaluate_trails_with_opa) to automate decision-making
- Explore the [Controls API reference](/reference/controls) for programmatic catalog management