secure-dependency-health-check

name	secure-dependency-health-check
description	Helps choose secure, healthy open-source packages by evaluating vulnerability status, maintenance health, popularity, community, and security posture. Use this skill when: - Agent needs to import a new dependency - User asks "which package should I use for X?" - User wants to compare packages (A vs B) - User asks "is this package safe?" - User asks for a "secure alternative" to a package - User mentions "dependency health", "package chooser", or "package security"
allowed-tools	mcp_snyk_snyk_package_health_check Read Write Bash Grep
license	Apache-2.0
compatibility	Requires Snyk MCP server connection and authenticated Snyk account. Supported ecosystems: npm, pypi, maven, nuget, golang.
metadata	{"author":"Snyk","version":"1.1.0"}

Secure Dependency Health Check

Help developers and AI agents make informed decisions when selecting open-source packages by evaluating security health, vulnerability history, popularity, community, and maintenance status.

Core Principle: Choose dependencies wisely to minimize supply chain risk.

---

Quick Start

When asked to recommend a package:

1. Identify the functional requirement
2. Research candidate packages
3. Run snyk_package_health_check on each candidate
4. Compare and recommend the healthiest, most secure option

---

Phase 1: Understand Requirements

Goal: Clarify what the user needs before recommending packages.

Step 1.1: Identify Candidates

If user provided candidates:

• Note each package name and version (if specified)
• Identify the package ecosystem

If user needs suggestions:

• Search for packages that meet the functional requirement
• Select 2-4 top candidates based on popularity/relevance

---

Phase 2: Security & Health Analysis

Goal: Evaluate each candidate package's security posture and overall health.

Step 2.1: Run Package Health Check for Each Candidate

For each candidate package, run snyk_package_health_check with the package name, version, and ecosystem (npm, pypi, maven, nuget, or golang). Key fields returned:

• overall_rating: "Healthy" or "Review recommended" — use as the primary evaluation metric
• security: vulnerability counts by severity (critical/high/medium/low) and a security rating
• maintenance: lifecycle status, latest release date, is_archived flag, and a maintenance rating ("Healthy", "Sustainable", or "Inactive")
• popularity: download counts, dependent packages/repos, and a popularity rating
• community: stargazers count, community file presence, and a rating ("Active" or "Sustainable")
• latest_version: the most recent published version
• recommendation: a human-readable summary of the overall assessment

Step 2.2: Review Tool Results

Surface the following from the tool response for comparison:

• Overall rating ("Healthy" vs "Review recommended")
• Security rating and vulnerability breakdown by severity
• Maintenance rating and lifecycle status (check is_archived, latest_release_published_at)
• Popularity and community ratings

Step 2.3: Disqualifiers

Immediately disqualify packages regardless of overall rating if:

• Security issues found with critical or high severity vulnerabilities
• Maintenance rating is "Inactive" or package is archived (is_archived: true)
• No releases in 3+ years (check latest_release_published_at)
• Known malicious package (supply chain attack)
• Typosquatting indicators (similar name to popular package)

---

Phase 3: Generate Recommendation

Goal: Present a clear, actionable comparison.

Step 3.1: Comparison Table

## Package Comparison: [Use Case]

| Criteria | Package A | Package B | Package C |
|----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| **Overall Rating** | Healthy | Review recommended | Healthy |
| **Security Rating** | Security issues found | Security issues found | No known security issues |
| **Critical CVEs** | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| **High CVEs** | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| **Maintenance** | Healthy | Inactive | Healthy |
| **Last Release** | 2 weeks ago | 8 months ago | 1 month ago |
| **Downloads** | 500K | 2M | 300K |
| **Popularity** | Influential project | Influential project | Influential project |

### Recommendation: **Package C**

**Reasons**:
1. "Healthy" overall rating with no known security issues
2. Healthy maintenance rating - actively maintained with recent release
3. Fewest vulnerabilities across all severity levels

**Trade-offs**:
- Fewer downloads than Package B (less battle-tested)
- Consider if specific features of Package A/B are required

**Recommended version**: Use the `latest_version` from the tool response to pin an exact version.

Step 3.2: Alternative Scenarios

If no package meets the security threshold:

## Warning: No Secure Option Available

All evaluated packages have significant security concerns:
- Package A: 2 Critical CVEs (actively exploited)
- Package B: Abandoned - no updates in 3 years
- Package C: Multiple high-severity vulnerabilities with no fix available

### Alternatives:
1. **Implement in-house**: For simple functionality
2. **Fork and fix**: If one package is close but has fixable issues
3. **Wait**: If updates are expected soon
4. **Accept risk**: With documented justification and monitoring

---

Phase 4: Integration Guidance

Goal: Help the user safely add the recommended package.

Step 4.1: Post-Installation Scan

Recommend running snyk_sca_scan after installation to verify the full dependency tree doesn't introduce unexpected vulnerabilities.

Step 4.2: Monitoring Recommendation

Advise committing lock files, enabling vulnerability notifications, and checking for security updates regularly.

---

Error Handling

Package Not Found

• Verify package name and ecosystem
• Check for typos
• Search for alternative names

Scan Fails or Insufficient Data

• The tool may return "Snyk doesn't have sufficient information about this package" for some packages
• Retry once; if still no data, fall back to manual research
• Report partial results with disclaimer that the tool could not assess this package

No Candidates Meet Threshold

• Report why each failed
• Suggest alternatives (in-house, fork, wait)
• Document risk if user proceeds anyway

---

Constraints

1. Never recommend packages with known exploits
2. Always specify exact version in recommendations
3. Disclose limitations if full analysis isn't possible
4. Update recommendations if user provides new constraints