auditing-dependencies-and-supply-chain

name	auditing-dependencies-and-supply-chain
description	Audits dependencies and the supply chain: known CVEs in direct and transitive deps, unpinned or floating versions, lockfile integrity, abandoned or low-reputation packages, typosquats, install scripts, license compatibility of the dependency tree, and SBOM currency. A repo-wide / scheduled audit. Use when auditing package.json, lockfiles, requirements, vendored code, or supply-chain risk.
provenance	{"taxonomy_version":"v0.9","built_from":[{"category":18,"source":"docs/research/cluster-5-verification.md#18","hash":"f876d3646ec45597347f3dd84153ef0d860abaf9eb3211d7d97cb8aca56cc9da"},{"category":27,"source":"docs/research/cluster-6-evolution.md#27","hash":"ba00467edc777fed0fce3439c40c1d7cede1c341eafc278465121b57c67c3ccc"}]}

auditing-dependencies-and-supply-chain

Is the dependency tree safe? CVEs, pinning, typosquats, install scripts, licenses.

When to use

Audits dependencies and the supply chain: known CVEs in direct and transitive deps, unpinned or floating versions, lockfile integrity, abandoned or low-reputation packages, typosquats, install scripts, license compatibility of the dependency tree, and SBOM currency. A repo-wide / scheduled audit. Use when auditing package.json, lockfiles, requirements, vendored code, or supply-chain risk.

Shape: repo. Run against the whole repository (scheduled or on demand), not a single diff.

Reviewer discipline

Report only real problems. If the code correctly handles the case, reply "No findings" and stop — do not invent issues. This guards against false positives on correct code; still report every genuine issue you do find, with its full detail.

Defects are the default; improvements are opt-in. By default this lens is defect-only: do not suggest changes to code that is already correct. When the team has opted up into improvement suggestions, a finding on already-correct code is admissible only as nit-severity, route: implementer (the author applies, defers, or ignores), and must clear the non-configurable anti-churn floor: it must genuinely improve — never offer a merely equivalent alternative — and must converge (once a dimension is as good as you can confidently make it, stop; never oscillate A→B then B→A, never re-order to an equivalent state). Defects keep the strict bar above regardless of this setting.

Team preferences. If the reviewed repo has .code-quality-atlas/preferences.md, apply it before reporting: a repo's .code-quality-atlas/preferences.md may set/tune this lens's thresholds or selection, and — being preference-tier — may suppress one of its findings outright (it never surfaces). Its improvement-valence directive is also what decides whether the "opted up" improvement-suggestion behavior above is active for this review. Absent the file, apply this lens's defaults exactly as written above.

Top checks

The head of the full checklist — enough for a first pass without opening any reference file:

• Is the new dependency necessary, or could stdlib/a few lines do it (avoid trivial deps and transitive bloat)?
• Is it healthy: recently maintained, broadly used, reasonable Scorecard, not single-maintainer abandonware?
• Any known CVEs in it or its transitive tree (run the scanner)? Is the version pinned via lockfile and honored in CI (npm ci)?
• Does it pull in a large transitive subtree or duplicate an existing dependency's capability?
• License compatible with the project (cross #27)?
• Does the install run scripts or request network/filesystem access it shouldn't (malicious-package surface)?
• New dependency license check: does an added dependency (and its transitive tree) carry a license compatible with the project's distribution model? Block/strongly-flag GPL/AGPL pulled into a permissive or proprietary product.
• Copyleft contamination / linkage: does the change link or combine with copyleft code in a way that triggers obligations (esp. AGPL over a network service)? Static vs. dynamic linking and "mere aggregation" matter — flag for legal if unsure.

Shared categories: category #27 checks are shared with auditing-compliance-and-provenance (their primary owner). When both lenses run on the same change, report each shared finding once, under the primary owner.

Mechanizing these checks

Where a finding here is one a tool can catch deterministically, surface that as an advisory route: implementer note next to the finding: the hand review caught it this time, and wiring the matching tool from reference/tool-rules.md into CI gates it going forward. This is a suggestion to mechanize, not a defect — it never blocks a verdict, and it falls away on a repo that already runs the tool.

Process notes. If this lens misfired on this change — flagged correct code, missed an obvious issue squarely in its own scope, or its checklist didn't fit the change shape — say so in one line under synthesizing-review-findings's Process notes appendix; that is not a defect finding. Say nothing if the lens worked as intended — never invent a process note to fill the section.

Going deeper

• reference/heuristics.md — the full checklist; open it when the change sits squarely in this lens's domain.
• examples.md — concrete good/bad findings, and the output format to match.
• reference/tool-rules.md — static-analysis rules covering the mechanical subset; for wiring up linters, not needed for the judgment review itself.
• reference/sources.md — the research behind each check; for provenance, not needed during a review.