← Home

@spectrum-web-components/opacity-checkerboard

23
Versions
License
No
Install Scripts
Verified
Provenance

Supply chain provenance

Status for the latest visible version.

SLSA provenance attestation npm registry signatures gitHead linked

Maintainers

caseyisonittaratadoberajrock38jnjoshnikkimkrubencjianliao79pvashishpatrickfulton

Keywords

design-systemspectrumadobeadobe-spectrumweb componentsweb-componentslit-elementlit-htmlcomponentcss

Accepted risks

Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.

SourceRuleReasonAccepted byWhen
provenance publisher-changed AI (provenance): Adobe monorepo transitioned to GitHub Actions CI publishing; SLSA attestation confirms legitimate pipeline. ai
provenance no-provenance AI (provenance): Adobe SWC monorepo does not publish with Sigstore provenance; stable pattern across all versions. ai

Versions (showing 23 of 23)

Version Deps Published
1.12.2 1 / 0
1.12.1 1 / 0
1.12.0 1 / 0
1.11.2 1 / 0
1.11.1 1 / 0
1.11.0 1 / 0
1.10.0 1 / 0
1.9.1 1 / 0
1.9.0 1 / 0
1.8.0 1 / 0
1.7.0 1 / 0
1.6.0 1 / 1
1.5.0 1 / 1
1.4.0 1 / 1
1.3.0 1 / 1
1.2.0 1 / 1
1.1.2 1 / 1
1.1.1 1 / 1
1.1.0 1 / 1
1.0.3 1 / 1
1.0.2 1 / 1
1.0.1 1 / 1
1.0.0 1 / 1

v1.12.2

1 finding
INFO Has SLSA provenance attestation provenance

Published via CI/CD with Sigstore attestation (predicate: https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1). This is the strongest supply chain integrity signal.

v1.5.0

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rubenc → rajrock38 (on 2025-04-15, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2025-04-15, but rajrock38 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.

v1.4.0

1 finding
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

v1.3.0

1 finding
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

v1.2.0

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rajrock38 → rubenc (on 2025-02-27, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (rubenc) than the most recent previously approved version (rajrock38) on 2025-02-27, but rubenc 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.

v1.1.2

1 finding
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

v1.1.1

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rubenc → rajrock38 (on 2025-01-29, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2025-01-29, but rajrock38 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.

v1.1.0

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rubenc → rajrock38 (on 2025-01-29, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (rajrock38) than the most recent previously approved version (rubenc) on 2025-01-29, but rajrock38 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.

v1.0.3

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rajrock38 → rubenc (on 2025-01-21, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (rubenc) than the most recent previously approved version (rajrock38) on 2025-01-21, but rubenc 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.

v1.0.2

2 findings
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.

INFO Publisher changed: rajrock38 → pvashish (on 2024-11-26, known maintainer) provenance

This version was published by a different npm account (pvashish) than the most recent previously approved version (rajrock38) on 2024-11-26, but pvashish 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.

v1.0.1

1 finding
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[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
INFO No provenance attestation provenance

[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.