@stylexjs/eslint-plugin
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| provenance | publisher-changed | AI (provenance): Legitimate maintainer handoff within facebook/stylex; publisher has clean track record. | ai | |
| maintainer-change | maintainer-added | AI (maintainer-change): Same benign maintainer transition; stable for this package. | ai | |
| source-diff | obfuscated-file:lib/reference/cleanOrderPriorities.js | AI (source-diff): Long single-line CSS property priority array, not obfuscation; stable for this package. | ai | |
| source-diff | obfuscated-file:lib/reference/recessOrderPriorities.js | AI (source-diff): Long single-line CSS property priority array, not obfuscation; stable for this package. | ai | |
| dependencies | unvetted-dep:css-shorthand-expand | AI (dependencies): Small CSS utility lib fitting a StyleX eslint plugin's purpose; no exec/fetch behavior. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Facebook/Meta OSS monorepo; provenance absence is consistent across all StyleX releases. | ai |
Versions (showing 40 of 40)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.19.0 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.18.3 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.18.2 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.18.1 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.18.0 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.5 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.4 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.3 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.2 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.1 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.17.0 | 4 / 0 | |
| 0.16.3 | 3 / 0 | |
| 0.16.2 | 3 / 0 | |
| 0.16.1 | 3 / 0 | |
| 0.16.0 | 3 / 0 | |
| 0.15.4 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.15.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.15.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.15.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.15.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.14.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.14.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.14.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.14.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.13.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.13.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.12.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.11.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.11.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.10.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.10.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.9.3 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.9.2 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.9.1 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.9.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.8.0 | 2 / 0 | |
| 0.7.5 | 1 / 0 | |
| 0.7.4 | 1 / 0 | |
| 0.7.3 | 1 / 0 | |
| 0.7.0 | 1 / 0 |
v0.17.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.17.2
3 findingsNewly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
Newly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.17.1
4 findingsNewly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
Newly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
[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 (naman34) than the most recent previously approved version (mellyeliu) on 2025-11-29, but naman34 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.
v0.17.0
3 findingsNewly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
Newly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.16.3
3 findingsNewly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
Newly added source file contains lines over 3000 chars, suggesting minified or obfuscated code. New obfuscated files are a strong attack indicator.
[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.16.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.16.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.16.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.15.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.15.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.15.2
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 (necolas) than the most recent previously approved version (mellyeliu) on 2025-08-01, but necolas 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.
v0.15.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.15.0
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 (mellyeliu) than the most recent previously approved version (necolas) on 2025-08-01, but mellyeliu 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.
v0.14.3
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 (mellyeliu) than the most recent previously approved version (necolas) on 2025-07-22, but mellyeliu 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.
v0.14.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.14.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.14.0
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 (necolas) than the most recent previously approved version (mellyeliu) on 2025-06-30, but necolas 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.
v0.13.1
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 (necolas) than the most recent previously approved version (mellyeliu) on 2025-05-22, but necolas 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.
v0.13.0
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 (mellyeliu) than the most recent previously approved version (necolas) on 2025-05-19, but mellyeliu 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.
v0.12.0
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 (mellyeliu) than the most recent previously approved version (necolas) on 2025-04-11, but mellyeliu 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.
v0.11.1
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 (necolas) than the most recent previously approved version (naman34) on 2025-03-03, but necolas 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.
v0.11.0
2 findingsThis version was published by a different npm account than previous versions on 2025-02-28. 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.
v0.10.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.10.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.1
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.9.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.8.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.7.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.7.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.7.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.7.0
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.