@fuxishi/vitepress-theme
一款精美的 VitePress 主题
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Without SLSA provenance there is no cryptographic link between this tarball and the public source — the axios compromise (March 2026) relied on exactly this gap.
Maintainers
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:node-vibrant | AI (dependencies): node-vibrant is a well-known color extraction library; no malicious history. | ai | |
| phantom-deps | phantom-dep:node-vibrant | AI (phantom-deps): Theme package bundles deps via Vite; node-vibrant likely consumed indirectly in compiled output rather than direct import. | ai | |
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:canvas-confetti | AI (dependencies): canvas-confetti is a well-known, benign animation library; stable false positive for this theme package. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): New personal theme package; lack of provenance is common and not a risk signal here. | ai |
Versions (showing 15 of 15)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0.14 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.13 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.12 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.11 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.10 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.9 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.8 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.7 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.6 | 3 / 7 | |
| 1.0.5 | 2 / 6 | |
| 1.0.4 | 2 / 6 | |
| 1.0.3 | 2 / 6 | |
| 1.0.2 | 2 / 6 | |
| 1.0.1 | 2 / 6 | |
| 1.0.0 | 2 / 6 |
v1.0.14
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.0.13
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.0.12
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.11
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.10
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.9
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v1.0.8
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v1.0.7
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.