assistant-stream
Streaming utilities for AI assistants
Supply chain provenance
Status for the latest visible version.
Maintainers
Keywords
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| source-diff | large-new-source-files | AI (source-diff): Package ships src/; file-count growth is normal build output, no injected payload. | ai | |
| npm-metadata | suspicious-initial-version | AI (npm-metadata): 0.0.0 is a placeholder for this long-lived package, not a throwaway. | ai | |
| publish-pattern | dormant-publish | AI (publish-pattern): SLSA provenance attestation via Sigstore confirms legitimate CI/CD publish, substantially mitigating account-takeover risk from dormancy. | ai | |
| publish-pattern | new-deps-added | AI (publish-pattern): @standard-schema/spec is a well-known, legitimate schema specification package; not a suspicious dependency for this type of library. | ai | |
| bogus-package | bogus-package | AI (bogus-package): High-download, ecosystem-trusted package; sparse metadata on the 0.0.0 placeholder is benign. | ai |
Versions (showing 15 of 115)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.0.15 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.14 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.13 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.12 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.11 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.10 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.9 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.8 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.7 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.6 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.5 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.4 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.3 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.2 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.0.0 | 0 / 0 |
v0.0.15
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.14
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.13
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.12
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.11
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.10
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 3 signal(s), weighted score 4: • [S_README_NO_CODE] Short README with no code block, no install instructions, and no usage/API section. • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.9
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.8
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.7
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.6
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.5
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.4
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.3
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.0.2
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.0.0
2 findings[Reject — re-review on republish] (prior reject: AI (bogus-package): Multiple spam indicators (no README code, empty description, no keywords) suggest low-value package; verdict generalizes across versions.) Matched 5 signal(s), weighted score 5: • [S_DESC_MATCHES_NAME] Description is empty or just restates the package name. • [S_NO_REPO_NO_HOME] No repository, homepage, or bugs URL — genuine packages almost always link somewhere. • [S_NO_KEYWORDS] No keywords declared. • [S_NO_DEPS] No runtime, dev, peer, or optional dependencies declared. • [S_TINY_PAYLOAD] Tiny payload: 0 code file(s), 1174 bytes total.
Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.