Add Builder.io lockfile example and verified case study#660
Conversation
sonukapoor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good foundation here - the fixture is solid and the baseline numbers check out. A few things to fix:
Missing final section - the doc ends at ## Baseline findings but every case study needs a ## Want your project reviewed? section as the last section. You can copy it from any of the existing studies (analog.md, nestjs.md etc.).
Extra sections - ## Lockfile scope and ## Scan verification aren't in the required template. The lockfile scope content fits naturally inside ## What this case study demonstrates, and the scan verification content can go inside ## Scan command. Could you fold them in to keep the structure consistent across all studies?
Once those are sorted this is good to go.
|
Thanks for the review, @sonukapoor — addressed the template feedback in
Ready for another look when you have a moment. |
sonukapoor
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Three things to fix:
The "Want your project reviewed?" closing section links to github.com/sonukapoor/cve-lite-cli/issues - please change this to github.com/OWASP/cve-lite-cli/issues.
The logo is a PNG - all other case study logos in website/static/img/ are SVGs. Please swap for an SVG export from Builder.io's brand assets.
The next fix hints in the critical findings table show version downgrades (e.g. next@15.x to 12.3.5). This reflects the minimum patched version in the OSV advisory data and can confuse readers. Please add a short note near that table explaining that fix hints reflect the earliest patched release in the advisory - developers should verify against the Next.js security page before upgrading.
Branch is also behind main - please rebase with git fetch origin && git rebase origin/main && git push --force-with-lease.
Fold Lockfile scope into What this case study demonstrates, merge Scan verification into Scan command, and add Want your project reviewed section per PR review.
- Point "Want your project reviewed?" link to OWASP/cve-lite-cli/issues - Replace builder-logo.png with official brand SVG (matches other case studies) - Add note explaining OSV fix hints can show earliest patched version (next downgrade)
|
Thanks @sonukapoor — all three points addressed and rebased onto latest
Ready for another look. |
- Point "Want your project reviewed?" link to OWASP/cve-lite-cli/issues - Replace builder-logo.png with official brand SVG (matches other case studies) - Add note explaining OSV fix hints can show earliest patched version (next downgrade) Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
50bf3be to
336fc89
Compare
Document BuilderIO/builder at 1219cc4 (5,655 packages, 315 findings) with Yarn Berry + Nx monorepo lockfile coverage,
yarn npm audit --allcomparison, and extreme unknown-relationship triage graph.Fixes #641
Summary
examples/builder/from BuilderIO/builder@1219cc4 (rootpackage.json+yarn.lock)website/docs/case-studies/builder.md— visual CMS / page-builder SDK monorepo coverage on one of the largest Yarn Berry lockfiles in the portfolio (5,655 packages, 315 findings)yarn npm audit --allon the same lockfile (2 vulnerability entries vs 315 deduplicated packages)website/static/img/builder-logo.pngCase-study-only PR — no shared-file edits (
index.md,sidebars.ts,README.md,examples/readme.md,CHANGELOG.md, root lockfile) per CONTRIBUTING guidance.Why this change
Builder.io (~8.7k GitHub stars) is a widely adopted visual development / headless CMS platform — drag-and-drop editing, Figma-to-code, SDKs for React, Vue, Svelte, Qwik, Angular, Next.js, and more. A committed Yarn Berry lockfile snapshot extends CVE Lite coverage into visual CMS / page-builder SDK monorepos — distinct from Mitosis (cross-framework compiler) while sharing the Builder.io ecosystem — and documents how CVE Lite behaves on a 5,655-package
yarn.lockvs defaultyarn npm audit --allscope.What changed
examples/builder/package.json+examples/builder/yarn.lockpinned to upstream revision1219cc4website/docs/case-studies/builder.mdwith verified scan results,yarn npm audit --allcomparison, Yarn Berry unknown-relationship caveats at scale, and baseline findings table (all 32 critical + 2 direct + representative high subset; full 315 rows match scan JSON)website/static/img/builder-logo.png(bundled locally fromexamples/next-js-builder-site/public/assets/logo.png)Verified scan output
Notable findings:
octokit@2.1.0(high) →yarn add octokit@3.1.2(breaking),zx@7.2.1(medium) →yarn add zx@8.8.5(breaking)@angular/ssr,@builder.io/qwik,@builder.io/qwik-city,@nguniversal/*,@remix-run/node,next,handlebars,form-data,nuxt,simple-git,vitest— framework example pathsesbuild,axios,minimatch,semver,rollup,vite,svelte,lodashacross examples/pluginsyarn npm audit --all(Yarn 3.6.1, same lockfile): 2 vulnerability entries (1 high · 1 moderate) on root workspace direct deps —octokit@2.1.0andzx@7.2.1. Case study explains full-lockfile parse vs Yarn Berry default audit scope (parallel to Storybook/Mitosis case studies).Validation
npm run buildnode dist/index.js examples/builder --verbose --all --json— 315 findings, 2 command groups, 5,655 packages parsedyarn npm audit --allrun fromexamples/builder/— 2 entries documented in case studycve-lite-scan-2026-06-14T22-44-44.json)User-facing impact
Does this change:
Notes
Issue #641 preliminary scan (v1.22.0, 2026-06-12) numbers match the verified live scan on 2026-06-14: 315 findings, 2/0/313 relationship split, 2 fix groups, 2/315 first-pass coverage. Baseline only — no fake "after" remediation results.
cc: @sonukapoor