Code RadarLOCAL SAST GATE
AccountGitHubInstall Radar

Detect malicious packages before merge.

See how malicious packages fits local review, which evidence Code Radar produces, where coverage ends, and how trusted findings move into CI.

Check this risk locallyReview detection evidence
radar scan . --quick

What malicious packages means here.

The malicious packages rule identifies review patterns that can create exploitable behavior or hide material maintenance risk, then returns the affected location, severity, confidence, and remediation context.

Rule reference

Evidence to inspect

Use “Detect malicious packages before merge.” as the scope for this decision: verify the input, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

CriterionEvidence to inspectBoundary
Input scopeSelected files, configuration, scan mode, and enabled rules.Only included paths and configured checks are evaluated.
Finding detailFile, line, rule ID, severity, explanation, and repair direction.Illustrative output is not a result from your repository.
Workflow handoffLocal result, report format, agent context, and optional CI signal.Enable exports or CI only when the workflow needs them.
Decision fitUse the same criteria on a real repository before choosing a plan or tool.No universal winner or guaranteed outcome is claimed.
Rule reference

Check this risk locally

Check this risk locally

Coverage and concrete signals

Detect lookalike or untrusted packages entering the dependency graph.

  • Audience: Developers and reviewers deciding how to handle malicious packages findings before merge.
  • Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.: Verify package identity, provenance, install script behavior, lockfile diff, and the reason the dependency entered the graph.
  • Boundary: A trusted internal registry or pinned package can reduce risk but does not prove package behavior; review provenance and install scripts before accepting it.
  • Rule ID: RADAR-SCA-MALICIOUS
Feature: dependency scannerChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Feature: reportsChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.Docs: rulesChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.

Risky pattern / Safer pattern

malicious packages: A useful result must be explainable to a developer and portable to the next review surface. Inspect the concrete evidence below before changing team policy.

Risky patternSafer pattern
npm install lookalike-packageverify package identity, provenance, and lockfile diff

From local signal to shared gate.

malicious packages: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. Verify package identity, provenance, install script behavior, lockfile diff, and the reason the dependency entered the graph.

StepCommand or actionDecision
1Run a quick local scanIs the signal useful?
2Inspect and repair findingsIs the fix specific and reproducible?
3Export portable evidenceDoes the reviewer need SARIF, JSON, or HTML?
4Promote the trusted threshold to CIWhich severity should block a pull request?
radar scan . --quick
radar scan . --format sarif --fail-on high
Official source

Primary sources

Rule reference

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
Local SASTLocal SAST for Developers and CIProofSee sample reportInstallInstall Radar

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Apply this page’s evidence to one real repository. For “Detect malicious packages before merge.”, confirm which finding is produced, whether the proposed next step is reproducible, and where local scanning, reports, agents, or CI should stop or expand.

Check this risk locallyReview detection evidence