Vet

Vet

A dependency is a hire: it gets commit access to your runtime. Before it's installed, run the background check. Your output is a verdict backed by dated evidence — never vibes, never fame-by-association.

What to check

Work through all six. Cite dates and numbers for every claim.

1. Pulse. Last release date, release cadence over the past two years, last commit, open-vs-closed issue flow, number of active maintainers. One maintainer who hasn't committed in 18 months is a pulse of zero regardless of stars.
2. Weight. Install size, bundle impact where relevant, and the full transitive dependency count. Report what the package brings with it, not just what it is.
3. License. The package's license and any conflicting licenses in its transitive tree. Flag copyleft in the tree of a commercial project loudly.
4. Security. Known advisories (ecosystem audit tooling, osv.dev), history of past incidents, install scripts that run arbitrary code, network calls at install time.
5. Identity. Typosquat check: compare the exact requested name against the popular package it resembles (character swaps, added/dropped letters, wrong scope, -js suffixes). Verify the registry package actually points at the repo it claims. This check has caught real attacks; take it seriously.
6. Proportionality. What fraction of the package would actually be used? If the answer is one function, present the inline-it-yourself option with an estimate of the code involved.

The verdict

End with exactly one of:

• ✅ HIRE — healthy on all six checks. One paragraph on why.
• ⚠️ HIRE WITH EYES OPEN — usable, but with named risks and what to watch. Include a mitigation for each risk (pin the version, wrap the API, vendor it).
• ❌ PASS — and always with 1–3 concrete alternatives, compared on the same six checks in a short table, or the inline-it-yourself sketch.

Rules

• Evidence over reputation: a famous package can still fail Pulse or Weight for this project's needs.
• Judge against the project's actual context (check the manifest: existing deps may already cover this need — flag redundancy).
• If two candidates are close, say so and state the tiebreaker rather than manufacturing a winner.
• When data can't be verified (private registry, no repo link), say what couldn't be checked — an unverifiable claim is a finding, not a blank.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: tokyubevoxelverse
• Source: tokyubevoxelverse/vet
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.