Skip to content

docs: add Cline Bun lockfile example and verified case study#656

Open
Ayush7614 wants to merge 1 commit into
OWASP:mainfrom
Ayush7614:ayushcline
Open

docs: add Cline Bun lockfile example and verified case study#656
Ayush7614 wants to merge 1 commit into
OWASP:mainfrom
Ayush7614:ayushcline

Conversation

@Ayush7614

@Ayush7614 Ayush7614 commented Jun 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Document cline/cline at 9d59de4 (1,518 packages, 5 findings) with Bun workspace lockfile coverage, bun audit comparison, and modeling caveats.

Closes #583

Summary

  • Adds lockfile-only snapshot examples/cline/ from cline/cline@9d59de4 (root package.json + bun.lock)
  • Documents verified baseline scan in website/docs/case-studies/cline.mdAI coding-agent / IDE tooling coverage on a Bun workspaces monorepo (1,518 packages, 5 findings)
  • 0 critical · 1 high · 2 medium · 2 low — lean graph with mixed outcomes: OSV fix hints present, 0 auto-generated fix command groups (Bun workspace path modeling caveats documented)
  • Side-by-side comparison with bun audit on the same lockfile (6 vulnerability entries vs 5 deduplicated packages)
  • Bundles Cline logo at website/static/img/cline-logo.png

Case-study-only PR — no shared-file edits (index.md, sidebars.ts, README.md, examples/readme.md, CHANGELOG.md, root lockfile) per updated CONTRIBUTING guidance.

Why this change

Cline (~63k GitHub stars) is a widely adopted autonomous coding agent (SDK, IDE extension, CLI). A committed Bun workspace lockfile snapshot extends CVE Lite coverage into AI agent tooling at meaningful scale — distinct from existing bun-simple / bun-workspace fixtures — and documents how CVE Lite behaves on real-world Bun monorepo graphs vs bun audit.

What changed

  • examples/cline/package.json + examples/cline/bun.lock pinned to upstream revision 9d59de4
  • website/docs/case-studies/cline.md with verified scan results, bun audit comparison, manual bun add --filter … remediation notes, and baseline findings table
  • website/static/img/cline-logo.png (bundled locally from Cline branding assets)

Verified scan output

Parsed 1518 packages from bun-lock (bun.lock)
Found 5 packages (6 CVEs) with known OSV matches
Critical: 0 | High: 1 | Medium: 2 | Low: 2
0 command groups — all 5 findings skipped (Bun workspace path modeling)

Notable findings:

  • esbuild@0.27.7 — high (transitive · dev) via Vite webview workspaces (new vs issue preliminary scan at v1.19.2)
  • postcss@8.4.31 — medium, file-type@16.5.4 — medium, @ai-sdk/provider-utils@3.0.25 — low, diff@8.0.2 — low

bun audit (same lockfile): 6 vulnerabilities (1 high · 2 moderate · 3 low) — totals align after CVE Lite deduplication (esbuild reports two advisories as one package row).

Validation

  • npm run build
  • node dist/index.js examples/cline --verbose --all — 5 findings, 0 command groups, 1518 packages parsed
  • bun audit run from examples/cline/ — workspace paths documented in case study
  • Case study numbers match live scan JSON (cve-lite-scan-2026-06-14T22-07-53.json)
  • Full 5-row baseline findings table included
  • Docusaurus site builds (CI)

User-facing impact

Does this change:

  • affect scanning behavior
  • affect output formatting
  • affect JSON output
  • affect docs only

Notes

Issue #583 preliminary scan (v1.19.2, 2026-06-08) reported 4 findings / 2 fix groups with direct postcss and diff classification. Verified scan at v1.22.0 reports 5 findings (esbuild advisory additions) and 0 auto fix groups on this lockfile-only Bun workspace snapshot — the case study documents this delta and recommends pairing CVE Lite with bun audit for workspace filter targets.

cc: @sonukapoor

Document cline/cline at 9d59de4 (1,518 packages, 5 findings) with Bun
workspace lockfile coverage, bun audit comparison, and modeling caveats.

Closes OWASP#583
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add Cline lockfile example and verified case study

1 participant