Back to skills
SKILL.md
Dependency Update Review
ASecurityUse when performing dependency update review — dependency update PR review template covering CVE assessment, breaking change detection, license compliance, transitive dependency analysis, and upgrade risk evaluation. Provides a systematic framework for reviewing package updates from Dependabot, Renovate, or manual upgrades to ensure security and stability.
- 6 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 1 view
- Added September 8, 2026
Works with
Security analysis
100/100npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill dependency-update-review --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Dependency Update Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-dependency-update-review)---
name: dependency-update-review
enabled: true
description: |
Use when performing dependency update review — dependency update PR review
template covering CVE assessment, breaking change detection, license
compliance, transitive dependency analysis, and upgrade risk evaluation.
Provides a systematic framework for reviewing package updates from Dependabot,
Renovate, or manual upgrades to ensure security and stability.
required_connections:
- prefix: github
label: "GitHub"
config_fields:
- key: repository
label: "Repository"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., org/backend-service"
- key: pr_number
label: "PR Number"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., 1234"
- key: package_manager
label: "Package Manager"
required: false
placeholder: "e.g., npm, pip, maven, go modules"
features:
- CODE_REVIEW
---
# Dependency Update Review Skill
Review dependency update PR **#{{ pr_number }}** in **{{ repository }}** ({{ package_manager }}).
## Workflow
### Phase 1 — Security Assessment
```
CVE ASSESSMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Security advisory review:
[ ] CVE identifier: ___
[ ] Severity: critical / high / medium / low
[ ] Affected versions: ___
[ ] Fixed in version: ___
[ ] Exploitability: ___
[ ] Impact analysis:
[ ] Vulnerable code path used in application: YES / NO
[ ] Attack vector applicable to deployment: YES / NO
[ ] Workaround available if upgrade blocked: YES / NO
[ ] Transitive dependencies:
[ ] Transitive vulnerability scan clean: YES / NO
[ ] New transitive dependencies introduced: ___
```
### Phase 2 — Breaking Changes
```
BREAKING CHANGE REVIEW
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Version bump type: major / minor / patch
[ ] Changelog reviewed: YES / NO
[ ] Breaking changes identified:
Change | Impact | Migration
────────────────────────────┼───────────┼──────────
___ | ___ | ___
[ ] API surface changes: YES / NO
[ ] Deprecation warnings addressed: YES / NO
[ ] Migration guide followed: YES / NO
```
### Phase 3 — License Compliance
```
LICENSE CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] License of updated package: ___
[ ] License compatible with project: YES / NO
[ ] License change from previous version: YES / NO
[ ] New transitive dependency licenses:
Package | License | Compatible
─────────────────┼────────────┼───────────
___ | ___ | YES / NO
[ ] Copyleft license introduced: YES / NO
[ ] Legal review required: YES / NO
```
### Phase 4 — Stability Verification
```
STABILITY CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] All existing tests pass: YES / NO
[ ] Package download stats (popularity): ___
[ ] Release age (avoid day-zero releases): ___
[ ] Known regressions in release: YES / NO
[ ] Lock file properly updated: YES / NO
[ ] Build artifacts unchanged (no unexpected size changes): YES / NO
[ ] Runtime tested in staging: YES / NO
```
## Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
## Output Format
Produce a dependency review report with:
1. **Security verdict** (safe / requires attention / blocking)
2. **Breaking change impact** (none / low / high)
3. **License compliance status** (compliant / review needed / blocked)
4. **Upgrade recommendation** (approve / approve with changes / reject)
5. **Risk mitigation steps** if applicable
Attribution
Comments
Loading comments…