requestish
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
Accepted risks
Findings the reviewer chose to accept rather than block on.
| Source | Rule | Reason | Accepted by | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| source-diff | obfuscated-file:coverage/lcov-report/prettify.js | AI (source-diff): prettify.js is the standard lcov/Istanbul coverage report syntax highlighter; minified by design, not malicious. | ai | |
| source-diff | large-new-source-files | AI (source-diff): New files are lcov coverage report artifacts, not injected payloads. | ai | |
| source-diff | source-size-tripled | AI (source-diff): Size increase explained by inclusion of lcov coverage report directory in published package. | ai | |
| publish-pattern | new-deps-added | AI (publish-pattern): New deps are from the same trusted publisher namespace; not a third-party injection. | ai | |
| provenance | no-provenance | AI (provenance): Common for this publisher's packages; no other risk signals present. | ai |
Versions (showing 12 of 12)
| Version | Deps | Published |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1.12 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.10 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.9 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.8 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.7 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.6 | 2 / 9 | |
| 0.1.5 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.1.4 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.1.3 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.1.2 | 2 / 6 | |
| 0.1.1 | 0 / 8 | |
| 0.1.0 | 0 / 8 |
v0.1.12
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.10
2 findingsNewly 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.
v0.1.9
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.8
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.7
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.6
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.5
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.4
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.3
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.2
1 finding[Accepted risk] Package was published without Sigstore provenance. Consider requesting the maintainer enable provenance via CI/CD.
v0.1.1
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.
v0.1.0
1 findingPackage was published without Sigstore provenance. Only ~12% of npm packages have provenance, so this is common but not ideal.