review-deps
Skill8 starsChanged 50 days agoMITView on GitHub
Audit project dependencies for vulnerabilities, license compliance risks,
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- cjohnhanson/almanactheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
- cjohnhanson/tiskettheir own version, first seen Aug 20, 2026
- ba0918/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 9, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- cjohnhanson/almanac★ 1same name
- cjohnhanson/tisket★ 1same name
- ba0918/claude-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository53 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-browserSkill
- anything-to-skillSkill
- ci-generateSkill
- ci-localSkill
- clotho-researchSkill
- codex-imagegenSkill
- create-ruleSkill
- create-skillSkill
- db-migrateSkill
- docker-initSkill
- docs-adrSkill
- docs-checkSkill
- docs-diagramSkill
- docs-initSkill
- docs-rfcSkill
- docs-updateSkill
- env-setupSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- fix-bugSkill
- git-commitSkill
- git-create-prSkill
- gitflowSkill
- git-releaseSkill
- git-syncSkill
- i18n-checkSkill
- implement-featureSkill
- improve-skillSkill
- inject-docsSkill
- jira-cliSkill
- motion-studioSkill
- optimize-ai-setupSkill
- orchestrateSkill
- oss-launchSkill
- prd-to-issuesSkill
- product-design-specSkill
- product-design-tokensSkill
- product-prdSkill
- project-illustratorSkill
- project-plannerSkill
- refactorSkill
- renderSkill
- review-codeSkill
- review-designSkill
- review-perfSkill
- review-planSkill
- review-securitySkill
- shipSkill
- stopslopSkill
- test-suiteSkill
- vrt-checkSkill
- wtfSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 58
Read lock files for transitive dependency details when needed
- Distinctive: line 86
Before presenting the report, verify:
- Distinctive: line 87
Every vulnerability finding has a CVE/GHSA ID or audit tool reference
- Distinctive: line 88
Every finding references the exact installed version and fix version
- Distinctive: line 92
No duplicate findings across categories
- Distinctive: line 95
No invented CVEs or license types, and no made-up version numbers
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Dependency Review
Dependency audit covering vulnerability scanning, license compliance, and staleness. This skill only analyzes: it never touches code or lock files. It also never auto-installs upgrades or missing audit tools, reporting anything missing as unavailable instead.
Cite exact package names/versions/CVE IDs from actual tool output, never estimate or invent them.
Audit Workflow
Phase 1: Detect Package Managers & Technology Stack
Discover all package managers present in the project:
Use Glob to check for the existence of these files:
- package.json / package-lock.json / yarn.lock / pnpm-lock.yaml → npm/yarn/pnpm (Node.js)
- pyproject.toml / requirements*.txt / Pipfile / setup.py → pip/uv/poetry (Python)
- Cargo.toml / Cargo.lock → cargo (Rust)
- go.mod / go.sum → go modules (Go)
- composer.json / composer.lock → composer (PHP)
- Gemfile / Gemfile.lock → bundler (Ruby)
- *.csproj / packages.config / Directory.Packages.props → NuGet (.NET)
- pom.xml / build.gradle / build.gradle.kts → Maven/Gradle (Java/Kotlin)
Read each detected manifest to understand:
- Total number of direct dependencies
- Total number of dev dependencies
- Whether lock files are present and committed
- Workspace/monorepo structure (multiple package.json, Cargo.toml workspaces, etc.)Phase 2: Run Native Audit Commands
Execute the audit command for each detected package manager. Run independent commands in parallel, and save all raw output (including "tool not installed" errors) for Phase 3. Commands per ecosystem are in references/audit-commands.md, load it now.
Phase 3: Analyze Vulnerabilities, Licenses, and Staleness
Analyze the Phase 2 output across three dimensions (vulnerability triage, license compliance, staleness/upgrade complexity) scoped per the Scoping section below. Detailed per-dimension steps and risk-classification tables are in references/agent-prompts.md, load it before starting this phase.
Default to doing all three passes yourself, sequentially, in the current context: this is classification over data already fetched in Phase 2, not independent research, so a 3-way agent fan-out mostly re-reads the same output three times. Only spawn parallel Explore agents (one per dimension) when the audit output is unusually large: a multi-ecosystem monorepo, or output that would blow the context budget for a single pass. If no subagent/task tool is available, always do the three passes inline sequentially: that is the correct behavior for most runs anyway, not a degraded fallback.
Whichever mode you use:
- Read lock files for transitive dependency details when needed
- Provide structured findings with evidence from actual tool output
- Classify risk level (Critical/High/Medium/Low)
- Recommend specific actions with exact target versions
Phase 4: Risk Assessment & Prioritization
- Collect all findings across the three dimensions.
- Deduplicate: remove findings reported under more than one dimension.
- Cross-reference: combine vulnerability + license + staleness data per package.
Prioritize by composite risk, using this severity table:
Severity Criteria Critical Known exploited CVEs (CISA KEV), RCE vulnerabilities, packages with no maintained fork High High-severity CVEs with public exploits, copyleft license in a proprietary project, packages 3+ major versions behind Medium Medium-severity CVEs without a public exploit, permissive-but-unusual licenses, packages 1-2 major versions behind Low Low-severity CVEs, informational license notes, minor version drift - Group findings by action type: security patches (non-breaking), major upgrades (breaking), or replacements for abandoned packages.
- Report statistics: total dependencies, vulnerable count, license-risky count, stale count.
Phase 5: Generate Dependency Report
Generate a comprehensive markdown report following the template in references/report-template.md.
Phase 6: Verification & Quality Check
Before presenting the report, verify:
- Every vulnerability finding has a CVE/GHSA ID or audit tool reference
- Every finding references the exact installed version and fix version
- License findings reference the actual license field from the package manifest
- Staleness findings include the current and latest versions plus the release date
- Statistics are accurate (counted from actual tool output, not estimated)
- No duplicate findings across categories
- Risk ratings are justified with evidence
- Upgrade recommendations include breaking change warnings where applicable
- No invented CVEs or license types, and no made-up version numbers
- Dependabot alerts are reconciled with local audit results
Scoping
By default, run all three dimensions (vulnerabilities, licenses, staleness) at medium severity and above. If the user asks to scope to just one dimension (e.g. "just check for vulnerabilities" or "license risk only"), run only that phase. If they ask to filter by severity (e.g. "critical only"), filter the report to that level and above.
Limitations
| Limitation | Detail |
| Static analysis only | Cannot detect runtime-only vulnerabilities |
| Tool dependent | Accuracy depends on the installed audit tools and their databases |
| License heuristic | License detection relies on package metadata, which may be incomplete |
| No private registry support | May not detect vulnerabilities in packages from private registries |
| Transitive depth | Some ecosystems have limited transitive vulnerability data |
| Advisory lag | New CVEs may not be in audit databases for 24-48 hours after disclosure |
References
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

