Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

dependency-audit依赖性审计

Agent Skill

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

总安装

384

周安装

16

GitHub Stars

217

下载量

128
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:dependency-audit(依赖性审计)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mathews-tom/praxis-skills
仓库路径:skills/dependency-audit
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mathews-tom/praxis-skills --skill dependency-audit
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mathews-tom/praxis-skills --skill dependency-audit

简介

dependency-audit 用于辅助安全审计、权限检查和常见漏洞排查。

  • 适合梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险或分析鉴权逻辑。
  • 适用于 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中的安全审查场景。
  • 通过 npx 安装,不能将工具输出直接作为最终结论。
  • 涉及密钥、令牌或生产系统时,需先确认最小权限和操作边界。

SKILL.md

Dependency Audit

Comprehensive dependency risk assessment: license compatibility analysis, maintenance health scoring, CVE detection, bloat identification, and transitive dependency risk mapping. Produces an actionable report with prioritized remediation steps organized by urgency (security → license → maintenance → bloat).

Reference Files

FileContentsLoad When
references/license-compatibility.mdLicense compatibility matrix, copyleft detection, commercial-safe licensesAlways
references/health-metrics.mdMaintenance health indicators, scoring criteria, abandonment detectionAlways
references/bloat-detection.mdIdentifying unused deps, duplicate functionality, heavy transitive treesBloat analysis requested
references/cve-sources.mdCVE databases, advisory sources, vulnerability severity interpretationSecurity audit requested

Prerequisites

  • Access to the project's dependency files (pyproject.toml, requirements.txt, package.json, Cargo.toml, go.mod)
  • Lock file (for exact versions and transitive dependencies)
  • Project license (to determine compatibility requirements)

Workflow

Phase 1: Parse Dependency Tree

  1. Direct dependencies — Packages explicitly declared in the project.
  2. Transitive dependencies — Dependencies of dependencies. Often 10-50x the direct count.
  3. Version constraints — Pinned (==1.2.3), ranged (>=1.0,<2.0), or floating (*).
  4. Development vs production — Separate dev/test dependencies from production.

Tools:

  • Python: uv pip list, pip-audit, pipdeptree
  • Node.js: npm list --all, npm audit
  • Rust: cargo tree, cargo audit

Phase 2: Audit Licenses

For each dependency:

  1. Identify the license — Check package metadata, LICENSE file, pyproject.toml.
  2. Classify compatibility — Against the project's own license: License Commercial OK Copyleft Risk Level MIT, BSD, ISC, Apache 2.0 Yes No Low LGPL With care Weak Medium GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0 No (unless GPL project) Strong High AGPL No (unless AGPL project) Strong + network Critical Unknown Cannot determine Unknown Critical
  3. Flag issues — Copyleft licenses in proprietary projects, unknown licenses, license changes between versions.

Phase 3: Assess Maintenance Health

For each dependency, evaluate maintenance signals:

IndicatorHealthyWarningAbandoned
Last release< 6 months6-18 months> 18 months
Commits (90 days)10+1-90
Open issues response< 2 weeks2-8 weeks> 8 weeks or no response
Bus factor3+ maintainers21
CI statusPassingFlakyFailing or absent

Phase 4: Check Security

  1. Known CVEs — Check against advisory databases:

- Python: pip-audit, PyPI advisory database - Node.js: npm audit, GitHub Advisory Database - General: NVD (National Vulnerability Database)

  1. Severity classification — CVSS score interpretation: CVSS Score Severity Action 9.0-10.0 Critical Upgrade immediately 7.0-8.9 High Upgrade within days 4.0-6.9 Medium Upgrade within weeks 0.1-3.9 Low Upgrade at convenience
  2. Fix availability — Is there a patched version? If not, what's the workaround?

Phase 5: Detect Bloat

  1. Unused dependencies — Dependencies imported nowhere in the codebase.
  2. Duplicate functionality — Multiple packages doing the same thing (2 HTTP clients, 2 JSON parsers).
  3. Heavy transitive trees — Packages that pull in dozens of sub-dependencies for a simple feature.
  4. Size analysis — Large packages used for small functionality.

Phase 6: Report

Produce a prioritized report with action items.

Output Format

## Dependency Audit: {Project Name}

### Summary
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Direct dependencies | {N} |
| Transitive dependencies | {N} |
| License issues | {N} |
| Maintenance concerns | {N} |
| Security vulnerabilities | {N} |
| Bloat candidates | {N} |

### License Compliance

| Package | Version | License | Compatible | Issue |
|---------|---------|---------|------------|-------|
| {pkg} | {ver} | MIT | Yes | None |
| {pkg} | {ver} | GPL-3.0 | No | Copyleft in proprietary project |
| {pkg} | {ver} | Unknown | Unknown | License not identifiable |

### Maintenance Health

| Package | Last Release | Commits (90d) | Maintainers | Status |
|---------|-------------|---------------|-------------|--------|
| {pkg} | {date} | {N} | {N} | {Healthy/Warning/Abandoned} |

### Security Vulnerabilities

| Package | Version | CVE | Severity | Fix Available | Fixed In |
|---------|---------|-----|----------|---------------|----------|
| {pkg} | {ver} | {CVE-ID} | {severity} | {Yes/No} | {version} |

### Bloat Analysis

| Package | Install Size | Used By | Recommendation |
|---------|-------------|---------|----------------|
| {pkg} | {size} | {usage description} | {Remove/Replace/Keep} |

### Action Items

#### Immediate (Security)
1. Upgrade {pkg} to {version} — fixes {CVE-ID} ({severity})

#### Short-term (License)
1. Review {pkg} GPL usage — may require license change or removal

#### Medium-term (Maintenance)
1. Find alternative to {pkg} — abandoned since {date}

#### Long-term (Bloat)
1. Remove {pkg} — unused in codebase
2. Replace {pkg} with lighter alternative

### Transitive Risk
- {direct-dep} depends on {transitive-dep} which has {issue}

Calibration Rules

  1. Production dependencies first. Dev/test dependencies have lower risk since they don't ship to users. Audit production dependencies with higher scrutiny.
  2. Transitive risk is real. A direct dependency with MIT license may pull in a GPL transitive dependency. Always check the full tree.
  3. Abandoned is not broken. A mature, stable library that hasn't been updated in a year may be perfectly fine. Evaluate based on whether the library is "done" vs "neglected."
  4. Security is non-negotiable. Critical and High CVEs must be addressed immediately. Medium CVEs should be tracked. Low CVEs can wait for the next dependency update cycle.

Error Handling

ProblemResolution
No lock file availableAudit based on declared dependencies. Note that transitive analysis is incomplete without a lock file.
License metadata missingCheck the package's repository for LICENSE file. Note packages where license cannot be determined.
Package registry unavailableWork from cached metadata and local lockfile data.
Too many dependencies to audit manuallyPrioritize: production deps first, then direct deps, then transitive deps with known issues.

When NOT to Audit

Push back if:

  • The project is a prototype that won't ship — defer audit until production decision
  • The user wants dependency updates, not audit — different task (dependabot, renovate)
  • The project has no dependencies (pure standard library) — nothing to audit

Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"It's a trusted package"Trust is not a security model — trusted packages get compromised (event-stream, ua-parser-js, colors.js)
"Only a minor version bump"Minor versions can introduce vulnerabilities, change behavior, or add transitive dependencies — semver is a promise, not a guarantee
"We don't use the vulnerable function"Transitive dependencies might — and attack surface includes any code loaded into the process
"The CVE is low severity"Low severity in isolation can be critical in your context — a "low" SSRF in an internal service with cloud metadata access is critical
"We'll update when there's a known exploit"Known exploits mean you're already behind — patch within SLA, not after breach
"Too many dependencies to audit"That's the problem, not an excuse — high dependency count IS a risk finding

Red Flags

  • Auditing only direct dependencies while ignoring transitive dependency tree
  • Dismissing CVEs without checking if the vulnerable code path is reachable
  • No license compatibility check — GPL in a proprietary codebase is a legal finding
  • Accepting "no known vulnerabilities" from a single scanner without cross-referencing
  • Ignoring dependency age — unmaintained packages with no updates in 2+ years are a risk
  • Skipping lockfile analysis (pinned vs. floating versions)

Verification

  • Both direct and transitive dependencies scanned
  • Vulnerability scanner output captured: npm audit / pip-audit / cargo audit
  • Each CVE finding includes: severity, affected version range, upgrade path, reachability assessment
  • License compatibility verified against project license
  • Dependency age and maintenance status checked for top-level deps
  • Lockfile present and version pinning verified — no floating ranges in production

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

36.79%
按下载量换算47

Claude

28.65%
按下载量换算37

Cursor

17.16%
按下载量换算22

Gemini CLI

9.9%
按下载量换算13

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills