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.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill dependency-update-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Dependency Update Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-dependency-update-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!