| name | checking-license-compliance |
| description | Audit a project's dependency licenses against an explicit policy
(allow-list / deny-list / review-required) and flag incompatibilities
before they ship to production. Reads SPDX license identifiers from
npm package manifests, Python METADATA / PKG-INFO files, and
pyproject.toml; classifies each license by family (permissive,
weak-copyleft, strong-copyleft, proprietary, unknown); detects
copyleft contamination and SPDX-incompatible license combinations.
Use when: pre-release legal review, M&A code-audit due diligence,
preparing an OSS attribution NOTICE file, or switching a project's
own license.
Threshold: any GPL-family license in a project declaring MIT or
Apache-2.0; any UNKNOWN-license package; any metadata-vs-source
license mismatch.
Trigger with: "check licenses", "license compliance audit",
"SPDX scan", "GPL contamination check".
|
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Bash(python3:*)","Bash(pip:*)","Bash(npm:*)","Glob"] |
| disallowed-tools | ["Bash(rm:*)","Bash(curl:*)","Bash(wget:*)","Write(.env)","Edit(.env)"] |
| version | 3.0.0-dev |
| author | Jeremy Longshore <jeremy@intentsolutions.io> |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | Designed for Claude Code |
| tags | ["security","licensing","spdx","compliance","pentest"] |
Checking License Compliance
Overview
License compliance is a security concern only in the indirect sense
that an unintended license obligation can force you to release
proprietary source code, retroactively invalidate a customer
contract, or render an M&A transaction infeasible. The cost is
legal and contractual rather than exploitative — but the
consequence ladder is real.
The most-stepped-on landmine is copyleft contamination:
unintentionally including a GPL or AGPL-licensed package in a
codebase the rest of which is permissively licensed (MIT, Apache-2.0,
BSD). The terms of the GPL family say that any project distributing
GPL code MUST itself release source under a GPL-compatible license.
If your package.json says MIT and one of your transitive deps is
GPL-2.0, you may be obligated to either re-license your code or
remove the dep.
This skill audits the resolved dependency tree against an explicit
policy file and emits findings for:
- Direct deps with deny-listed licenses
- Transitive deps with deny-listed licenses
- Packages with UNKNOWN license metadata (no SPDX identifier)
- License conflicts between metadata and source headers
- Combinations of licenses that are mutually incompatible (e.g.
GPL-2.0 + Apache-2.0 without a patent grant)
When the skill produces findings
| Finding | Severity | Threshold | Affected control |
|---|
| Strong-copyleft in permissive project | CRITICAL | GPL-2.0/3.0, AGPL-3.0, or similar in a project declaring MIT/Apache-2.0/BSD | (legal) |
| Weak-copyleft requiring source disclosure | HIGH | LGPL family in a project where the obligation isn't being met (no source-availability commitment) | (legal) |
| Custom / non-SPDX license | HIGH | License field doesn't match SPDX expression syntax; requires legal review | (legal) |
| Unknown license | MEDIUM | Package has no license field, no LICENSE file detected | (legal) |
| Deny-listed license (per policy) | HIGH | Package license is in the explicit deny-list in the policy file | (legal) |
| Review-required license (per policy) | MEDIUM | Package license is in the review-list (e.g. MPL-2.0) | (legal) |
| Incompatible license combination | HIGH | Detected pair of licenses known to conflict (e.g. GPL-2.0-only + Apache-2.0) | (legal) |
| License declared differently in metadata vs source headers | MEDIUM | LICENSE file says one license; per-file SPDX-License-Identifier headers say another | (legal) |
| Permissive license requiring attribution | INFO | MIT/BSD/Apache-2.0 — emit reminder that NOTICE / attribution file should list the package | (informational) |
Prerequisites
- Python 3.9+
- Target project with EITHER a
package.json + node_modules/
OR a Python project (pyproject.toml/requirements.txt/
installed venv)
- Policy file at
./.license-policy.json (auto-detected) or
passed via --policy. If absent, the skill uses a built-in
default policy that flags strong copyleft for permissive parent
projects.
Instructions
Step 1 — Identify the project's own declared license
The skill reads the project's top-level license from:
- npm:
package.json's license field
- Python:
pyproject.toml's [project].license table OR
setup.cfg's license field
If the project's own license isn't declared, the skill emits a
FATAL operational finding — license compliance can't be checked
without a baseline. Add a license field before running.
Step 2 — Identify policy
The policy file is JSON:
{
"allow": ["MIT", "BSD-3-Clause", "Apache-2.0", "ISC", "BSD-2-Clause"],
"deny": ["GPL-2.0-only", "GPL-3.0-only", "AGPL-3.0-only", "AGPL-3.0-or-later"],
"review": ["MPL-2.0", "EPL-2.0", "CDDL-1.0", "LGPL-3.0-or-later"],
"project_license": "MIT"
}
allow: licenses that pass without comment.
deny: licenses that produce a finding regardless of project license.
review: licenses that produce a MEDIUM-severity finding for legal review.
project_license: enforced — if the project declares this but a dep is in deny, finding is CRITICAL.
Step 3 — Run the scanner
python3 ./scripts/check_licenses.py /path/to/project
Options:
Usage: check_licenses.py PATH [OPTIONS]
Options:
--output FILE Write findings to FILE (default: stdout)
--format FMT json | jsonl | markdown (default: markdown)
--min-severity SEV (default: info)
--policy FILE Override default policy
--emit-attribution Also emit an attribution file (NOTICE.md) listing
every permissive-licensed dep that requires attribution
Step 4 — Interpret findings
CRITICAL findings block release pending legal review. Either remove
the offending dep, replace it with a permissively-licensed
alternative, or escalate to legal for a written exception.
HIGH findings require legal sign-off but don't necessarily block
release if the legal posture (e.g. service-only deployment under
AGPL) makes the obligation moot.
MEDIUM findings should be reviewed quarterly and either resolved
or moved into an explicit exception list.
INFO findings are reminders that an attribution / NOTICE file
should reference these packages.
Examples
Example 1 — Pre-release legal gate
python3 ./scripts/check_licenses.py . --min-severity high --format json --output license-audit.json
jq -e '. == []' license-audit.json || { echo "License finding — legal review required"; exit 1; }
Example 2 — Generate attribution file
python3 ./scripts/check_licenses.py . --emit-attribution --format markdown --output NOTICE.md
Example 3 — M&A due diligence
mkdir -p evidence/legal/
python3 ./scripts/check_licenses.py target-acquisition-codebase/ \
--format json \
--output evidence/legal/license-audit-$(date +%Y%m%d).json
Output
JSON / JSONL / Markdown per lib/report.py. Exit codes: 0 clean,
1 high/critical, 2 error.
Each Finding includes:
id — license-compliance::<package>::<license-id>severity — CRITICAL / HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW / INFOcategory — license-compliancesummary — what's wrongevidence — package name, declared license, project license, policy matchreferences — SPDX URL for the license, package home page
Error Handling
- No project license → emits an INFO/operational finding
recommending the operator add a
license field, exits 2.
- Unparseable policy file → exits 2 with a parser error message.
- Package with malformed license field → treated as UNKNOWN
license, emits MEDIUM finding.
- No SPDX identifier in source headers → emits INFO finding
reminding that SPDX header convention catches contamination at
the file level.
Resources
references/THEORY.md — SPDX license expression syntax, family
classifications, copyleft propagation theory, common license
incompatibilities, when LGPL static linking matters, AGPL
service-distribution clauses, public-domain edge cases (CC0 vs
unlicense)references/PLAYBOOK.md — Default policy templates per project
type (proprietary product, OSS library, internal-only tool, SaaS
service), attribution file generation, legal-counsel handoff
templates, replacing copyleft deps with permissive alternatives
