# Dependency Audit Skill

Produce a complete dependency audit report for a project — covering security vulnerabilities (with CVE references), license compliance against policy, outdated packages prioritised by risk, transitive dependency risk analysis, and a concrete remediation plan with timeline. A good dependency audit gives the team a clear, prioritised action list — not a raw dump of audit output that no one acts on.

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not already provided:
- **Project language and ecosystem** — npm, pip/PyPI, Maven/Gradle, Go modules, Cargo, RubyGems, NuGet, or mixed
- **Dependency list or package manifest** — paste the contents of `package.json`, `requirements.txt`, `go.mod`, `pom.xml`, etc., or provide the audit tool output
- **License policy** — which licenses are allowed, which are restricted (e.g. "GPL is prohibited", "MIT/Apache/BSD only", or "no policy yet — recommend one")
- **Current security tooling** — Dependabot, Snyk, OWASP Dependency-Check, npm audit, pip-audit, or none

## Output Format

---

# Dependency Audit Report: [Project Name]

**Ecosystem:** [npm / pip / Maven / Go / etc.]
**Audit date:** [Date]
**Auditor:** [Name]
**Total direct dependencies:** [N]
**Total transitive dependencies:** [N]
**Audit tool(s) used:** [npm audit / pip-audit / Snyk / OWASP Dependency-Check / etc.]

---

## Executive Summary

| Category | Finding | Risk level |
|---|---|---|
| Critical vulnerabilities | [N] CVEs requiring immediate action | [Critical / High / Low] |
| High vulnerabilities | [N] CVEs — fix within 7 days | [High / Medium] |
| License violations | [N] packages with non-compliant licenses | [High / Low] |
| Severely outdated packages | [N] packages > 2 major versions behind | [Medium] |
| Packages with no active maintenance | [N] packages — no commits in 12+ months | [Medium] |
| **Overall dependency health score** | **[Score]/100** | **[Red / Amber / Green]** |

**Scoring methodology:** Critical CVEs: −20 each. High CVEs: −10 each. License violations: −15 each. Abandoned packages: −5 each. Maximum deduction: 100. Score ≥80 = Green, 60–79 = Amber, <60 = Red.

**Immediate actions required:**
1. [Most critical action — e.g. "Upgrade lodash from 4.17.11 to 4.17.21 to fix CVE-2021-23337 (Critical — prototype pollution)"]
2. [Second action]
3. [Third action]

---

## 1. Security Vulnerability Findings

### Critical and High Severity (Act within 24–72 hours)

| Package | Installed version | Fix version | CVE | Severity | CVSS score | Description | Exploitability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | Critical | [9.x] | [e.g. Prototype pollution via `merge` function — remote code execution possible] | [Known exploit / PoC available / No known exploit] |
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | High | [7.x] | [e.g. Path traversal in file serving utility] | [PoC available] |
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | High | [7.x] | [e.g. Regular expression denial of service (ReDoS)] | [No known exploit] |

### Medium Severity (Fix within 30 days)

| Package | Installed version | Fix version | CVE | Severity | CVSS score | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | Medium | [5.x] | [Description] |
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | Medium | [4.x] | [Description] |

### Low Severity (Fix within 90 days or accept risk)

| Package | Installed version | Fix version | CVE | Severity | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [X.Y.Z] | [A.B.C] | Low | [Description] |

### Vulnerabilities With No Fix Available

| Package | CVE | Severity | Recommended mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | [High] | [e.g. "Remove this package — alternative: [replacement]"] |
| [package-name] | [CVE-YYYY-NNNNN] | [Medium] | [e.g. "Vendor has a fix in progress — track issue [URL]. Mitigate by [X]"] |

---

## 2. License Compliance Matrix

### License Policy Reference

| License | Category | Policy | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIT | Permissive | Allowed | Attribution required in distributed products |
| Apache 2.0 | Permissive | Allowed | Attribution + NOTICE file required |
| BSD 2-Clause / 3-Clause | Permissive | Allowed | Attribution required |
| ISC | Permissive | Allowed | |
| MPL 2.0 | Weak copyleft | Allowed with review | Source disclosure required for modified MPL files only |
| LGPL v2 / v3 | Weak copyleft | Allowed with review | Dynamic linking permitted; static linking may require disclosure |
| GPL v2 / v3 | Strong copyleft | **Restricted** | May require open-sourcing the entire codebase — legal review required |
| AGPL v3 | Strong copyleft | **Restricted** | Network use triggers copyleft — especially risky for SaaS |
| SSPL | Source available | **Prohibited** | Not OSI-approved — treat as proprietary |
| Proprietary / Commercial | Commercial | **Requires contract** | Verify license covers current use case and scale |
| Unknown / Unlicensed | — | **Prohibited** | No license = all rights reserved — cannot use legally |

### Findings: Packages With Compliance Issues

| Package | License | Issue | Recommendation | Risk if unaddressed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | GPL v3 | Copyleft — may require open-sourcing this project | Replace with [alternative] or get legal sign-off | Legal / IP risk |
| [package-name] | AGPL v3 | Network copyleft — SaaS use triggers disclosure | Replace with [alternative] | Legal / IP risk |
| [package-name] | Proprietary | License may not cover current usage tier | Verify license scope with vendor | Contract breach |
| [package-name] | Unknown | No license declared in package metadata | Contact maintainer or replace | Cannot use legally |

### All Licenses in Use (Full Inventory)

| License | Package count | Compliance status |
|---|---|---|
| MIT | [N] | Compliant |
| Apache 2.0 | [N] | Compliant |
| BSD-3-Clause | [N] | Compliant |
| ISC | [N] | Compliant |
| MPL 2.0 | [N] | Review required |
| GPL v3 | [N] | **Non-compliant** |
| Unknown | [N] | **Non-compliant** |

---

## 3. Outdated Package Analysis

### Severely Outdated (2+ major versions behind — high upgrade effort)

| Package | Installed | Latest stable | Versions behind | Last updated | Breaking changes summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [1.x.x] | [3.x.x] | 2 major | [Date] | [e.g. "API redesign in v2; async support added in v3"] |
| [package-name] | [0.x.x] | [2.x.x] | 2 major | [Date] | [Summary] |

### Moderately Outdated (1 major version behind)

| Package | Installed | Latest stable | Versions behind | Security fix in newer version? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [2.x.x] | [3.x.x] | 1 major | [Yes — CVE-YYYY-NNNNN / No] |
| [package-name] | [4.x.x] | [5.x.x] | 1 major | [No] |

### Minor/Patch Updates Available (Low risk to update)

| Package | Installed | Latest | Contains security fix? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [2.3.1] | [2.3.9] | [Yes / No] |
| [package-name] | [1.0.0] | [1.2.1] | [No] |

---

## 4. Dependency Graph Risk Analysis

### Transitive Dependency Risk

Transitive (indirect) dependencies carry risk because they are not explicitly managed. These are the highest-risk transitive dependencies in this project:

| Vulnerable transitive dep | Pulled in by | Installed version | Fix available | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [transitive-package] | [direct-parent] | [X.Y.Z] | [Yes — upgrade [parent] to [version]] | Upgrade direct dependency [parent] |
| [transitive-package] | [direct-parent] | [X.Y.Z] | [No] | Remove [parent] or use [alternative] |

### Dependency Concentration Risk

These packages are depended on by many other packages in the project — a vulnerability or deprecation would have cascading effects:

| Package | Depended on by (N packages) | Actively maintained? | Risk level |
|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [N] | [Yes / No — last commit: date] | [High / Medium] |
| [package-name] | [N] | [Yes] | [Medium] |

### Abandoned / Unmaintained Packages

| Package | Last release | Last commit | Weekly downloads | Recommended alternative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [package-name] | [Date] | [Date] | [N] | [alternative-package] |
| [package-name] | [Date] | [Date] | [N] | [Maintained fork: URL] |

---

## 5. Remediation Plan

### 30-Day Plan

**Week 1 — Critical vulnerabilities (Days 1–7)**

| Action | Owner | Package | Effort | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upgrade [package] [old] → [new] | [Name] | [package-name] | [30 min] | [No API changes / check breaking changes guide: URL] |
| Replace [package] with [alternative] | [Name] | [package-name] | [2 hours] | [No fix available — must replace] |
| Patch override for [transitive-dep] | [Name] | [transitive-dep] | [15 min] | [Add resolutions/overrides entry in manifest] |

```bash
# Commands for Week 1 upgrades:

# npm
npm install [package]@[target-version]
npm audit fix --force  # use with caution — may introduce breaking changes

# pip
pip install --upgrade [package]==[target-version]
pip-audit --fix  # if using pip-audit

# Go
go get [module]@[version]
go mod tidy

# Maven
# Update pom.xml version property, then:
mvn versions:use-latest-releases -DallowMajorUpdates=false
mvn dependency:resolve
```

**Week 2 — High vulnerabilities and license violations (Days 8–14)**

| Action | Owner | Package | Effort | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upgrade [package] | [Name] | [package-name] | [1 hour] | |
| Replace GPL-licensed [package] | [Name] | [package-name] | [4 hours] | [Alternative: [package]] |
| Legal review for [package] license | Legal team | [package-name] | [Legal team SLA] | [Submit via [process]] |

**Week 3 — Medium vulnerabilities and abandoned packages (Days 15–21)**

| Action | Owner | Package | Effort | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upgrade [package] | [Name] | [package-name] | [30 min] | |
| Replace abandoned [package] | [Name] | [package-name] | [2 hours] | [Maintained fork or alternative: [URL]] |

**Week 4 — Process improvements (Days 22–30)**

| Action | Owner | Effort | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enable Dependabot / Renovate for automated PRs | [Name] | [2 hours] | [Config in Section 6] |
| Add `npm audit` / `pip-audit` to CI — fail on Critical/High | [Name] | [1 hour] | [Config in Section 6] |
| Document license policy in CONTRIBUTING.md | [Name] | [1 hour] | [Based on policy in Section 2] |
| Schedule next quarterly audit | [Name] | [15 min] | [Add to team calendar] |

---

## 6. Policy Recommendations

### Automated Vulnerability Scanning in CI

Add the following to your CI pipeline to catch vulnerabilities before they merge:

```yaml
# GitHub Actions — adapt for your CI platform
dependency-audit:
  runs-on: ubuntu-latest
  steps:
    - uses: actions/checkout@v3

    # npm
    - name: npm audit
      run: npm audit --audit-level=high
      # Fails build on High or Critical vulnerabilities

    # pip
    - name: pip-audit
      run: |
        pip install pip-audit
        pip-audit --requirement requirements.txt --severity high

    # Go
    - name: govulncheck
      run: |
        go install golang.org/x/vuln/cmd/govulncheck@latest
        govulncheck ./...
```

### Dependabot / Renovate Configuration

```yaml
# .github/dependabot.yml — automated dependency update PRs
version: 2
updates:
  - package-ecosystem: "[npm / pip / gomod / maven]"
    directory: "/"
    schedule:
      interval: "weekly"
      day: "monday"
    open-pull-requests-limit: 10
    labels:
      - "dependencies"
      - "automated"
    ignore:
      # Ignore major version bumps — review these manually
      - dependency-name: "*"
        update-types: ["version-update:semver-major"]
```

### License Scanning

```bash
# npm — license checker
npx license-checker --onlyAllow 'MIT;Apache-2.0;BSD-2-Clause;BSD-3-Clause;ISC' \
  --failOn 'GPL;AGPL;LGPL'

# Python — pip-licenses
pip install pip-licenses
pip-licenses --allow-only="MIT;Apache Software License;BSD License;ISC License" \
  --fail-on="GNU General Public License"

# Go — go-licenses
go install github.com/google/go-licenses@latest
go-licenses check ./... --allowed_licenses=MIT,Apache-2.0,BSD-2-Clause,BSD-3-Clause
```

---

## 7. Dependency Health Score Detail

| Category | Max points | Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| No critical vulnerabilities | 30 | [N]/30 | −20 per critical CVE |
| No high vulnerabilities | 20 | [N]/20 | −10 per high CVE |
| License compliance | 20 | [N]/20 | −15 per violation |
| No abandoned packages | 15 | [N]/15 | −5 per abandoned package |
| Up-to-date major versions | 10 | [N]/10 | −2 per major version behind |
| Automated scanning enabled | 5 | [N]/5 | All-or-nothing |
| **Total** | **100** | **[Score]/100** | **[Red / Amber / Green]** |

---

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Every Critical and High CVE has a named owner and a resolution date in the 30-day plan
- [ ] License findings have been reviewed by legal or a named engineer with authority to accept the risk
- [ ] Transitive dependency vulnerabilities are included — not just direct dependencies
- [ ] Abandoned packages have a concrete replacement recommendation, not just "consider replacing"
- [ ] CI pipeline change is included — the audit findings should be the last time these are caught manually
- [ ] The dependency health score is calculated from actual findings, not estimated
- [ ] Remediation plan actions are specific commands or steps, not "upgrade package X" without version targets

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not report only direct dependencies — transitive dependency vulnerabilities are often more dangerous and are the most commonly missed
- [ ] Do not present raw audit tool output without interpretation — a table of 200 CVEs with no prioritisation is worse than no audit at all
- [ ] Do not assign all Critical CVEs as "fix immediately" without checking whether an exploitable path exists in your usage context
- [ ] Do not make license compliance decisions without legal input — flagging a GPL dependency without a recommendation is incomplete work
- [ ] Do not complete the audit without including a CI/CD pipeline step — a one-time audit that leaves the door open for new vulnerabilities is not a remediation
