@figma/code-connect
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Without SLSA provenance there is no cryptographic link between this tarball and the public source, so a manually published version cannot be tied back to a reviewed commit.
Maintainers
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@babel/parser | AI (phantom-deps): Babel framework packages loaded by convention in code-connect; stable pattern. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@storybook/csf-tools | AI (phantom-deps): Storybook tooling referenced in config; stable for this design-system package. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@babel/generator | AI (phantom-deps): Babel framework packages loaded by convention in code-connect; stable pattern. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@babel/core | AI (phantom-deps): Babel framework packages loaded by convention in code-connect; stable pattern. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:@babel/types | AI (phantom-deps): Babel framework packages loaded by convention in code-connect; stable pattern. | ai | |
| provenance | missing-githead | AI (provenance): Manual publish by known Figma maintainer; no source-commit link expected. | ai | |
| provenance | publisher-changed | AI (provenance): Handoff between figma-org accounts; expected for a first-party maintained package. | ai | |
| maintainer-change | maintainer-added | AI (maintainer-change): New maintainers are figma-suffixed org accounts; legitimate team transition. | ai | |
| install-scripts | install-script:postinstall | AI (install-scripts): postinstall runs patch-package (local patch application), standard for this package. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Figma-published package with strong ecosystem trust; lack of Sigstore attestation is common and not a risk signal here. | ai | |
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:fast-fuzzy | AI (dependencies): fast-fuzzy is a legitimate fuzzy-search library; its use in a design-tool CLI is expected and benign. | ai | |
| bogus-package | bogus-package | AI (bogus-package): Official Figma CLI tool; sparse README/keywords are a packaging style choice, not spam indicators. | ai |
Versions (showing 40 of 40)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 1.4.9 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.8 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.7 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.5 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.4 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.3 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.2 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.1 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.4.0 | 22 / 22 | |
| 1.3.13 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.12 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.11 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.10 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.9 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.8 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.7 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.6 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.5 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.4 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.3 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.2 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.1 | 22 / 23 | |
| 1.3.0 | 28 / 17 | |
| 1.2.4 | 27 / 17 | |
| 1.2.3 | 27 / 17 | |
| 1.2.2 | 27 / 17 | |
| 1.2.1 | 27 / 17 | |
| 1.2.0 | 27 / 17 | |
| 1.1.4 | 26 / 17 | |
| 1.1.3 | 26 / 17 | |
| 1.1.2 | 26 / 17 | |
| 1.1.1 | 26 / 17 | |
| 1.1.0 | 26 / 17 | |
| 1.0.6 | 24 / 16 | |
| 1.0.5 | 24 / 16 | |
| 1.0.4 | 24 / 16 | |
| 1.0.3 | 24 / 16 | |
| 1.0.2 | 24 / 16 | |
| 1.0.1 | 23 / 16 | |
| 1.0.0 | 23 / 16 |
v1.4.9
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (mina-asham-figma) than the most recent previously approved version (slees-figma) on 2026-07-06, but mina-asham-figma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.4.5
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (slees-figma) than the most recent previously approved version (christinabannister-figma) on 2026-05-13, but slees-figma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.4.3
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (christinabannister-figma) than the most recent previously approved version (slees-figma) on 2026-04-01, but christinabannister-figma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.4.2
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (slees-figma) than the most recent previously approved version (islobodiuk) on 2026-03-17, but slees-figma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.4.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.4.0
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (slees-figma) than the most recent previously approved version (islobodiuk) on 2026-02-18, but slees-figma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.12
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rgullyfigma) than the most recent previously approved version (islobodiuk) on 2025-12-10, but rgullyfigma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.11
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (islobodiuk) than the most recent previously approved version (rishir2024) on 2025-11-26, but islobodiuk is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.10
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (ptomas) than the most recent previously approved version (rishir2024) on 2025-11-19, but ptomas is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.9
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rishir2024) than the most recent previously approved version (rgullyfigma) on 2025-11-14, but rishir2024 is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.8
2 findingsThis version was published by a different npm account than previous versions on 2025-10-29. This could indicate a legitimate maintainer transition or an account compromise.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.3.5
3 findingsThis version has no gitHead field linking it to a source commit, but previous versions did. This suggests the publish environment changed. Published by: rgullyfigma.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (rgullyfigma) than the most recent previously approved version (ptomas) on 2025-09-05, but rgullyfigma is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.3
2 findingsThis version was published by a different npm account than previous versions on 2025-05-27. This could indicate a legitimate maintainer transition or an account compromise.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.3.2
2 findings[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
This version was published by a different npm account (kpetersson) than the most recent previously approved version (rishir2024) on 2025-04-04, but kpetersson is listed as a maintainer on prior approved versions (matched on name). This looks like a manual publish by a known maintainer rather than a publisher change. Recorded as INFO for audit trail.
v1.3.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.3.0
2 findingsScript: patch-package
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.2.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.2.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.2.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.2.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.2.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.1.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.1.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.1.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.1.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.1.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.