CodeDiag
NPM · @SABAHATTINK/CODEDIAG
Find Node.js API routes with no auth check or input validation, and scan project health.
Available components
Last scanned (2 hours ago)
Scores higher than 69% of npm servers
Category Security
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically from public evidence about the published package, including repeated runs of it in an isolated sandbox, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Supply Chain Security94
- No malware found by supply-chain analysis.Pass
- CVE check failed: a known medium-severity CVE affects minimatch 10.2.6, reached via ts-morph > @ts-morph/common > minimatch. A fixed version is available. View diagnostics → Fail
- No install/post-install scripts declared.Pass
- 11 of 40 dependencies flagged as unhealthy. View diagnostics → Partial
Provenance & Transparency100
- Source repository is publicly reachable at the declared URL. View diagnostics → Pass
- Cryptographically verified build provenance (signed, bound to sabahattink/codediag). View diagnostics → Pass
- Clear OSI-approved license (MIT).Pass
- Actively maintained (last published 2 days ago).Pass
- Publishes a security disclosure policy (SECURITY.md).Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability72
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 584 tokens (~194/item across 3 items; 3 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management13
- Stability observed for 4 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 3 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 4 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 4 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 7 to 10. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 2 days of observed history at the previous scan, 3 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +15
- Malware scan: unverified → pass ▲ security
- 2 Nov 26 −13
- Malware scan: pass → unverified ▼ security
- Known CVEs: CVE check failed: a known medium-severity CVE affects minimatch 10.2.6, reached via ts-morph > @ts-morph/common > minimatch. A fixed version is available. security
- Package version: 0.11.2 → 0.13.0 functional
- Package version: 0.11.2 → 0.12.0 functional
- 1 Nov 26 78
First indexed and scored.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Analysed npm/@sabahattink/codediag@0.13.0
Provenance Verified
A signed build attestation was found and verified, binding this exact artifact to the source repository it claims to come from.
| Result | Verified |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | npm |
| Reason | Verified |
| Discovered via | Registry attestation endpoint |
| Source repo | sabahattink/codediag |
| Certificate issuer | https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com |
| Certificate SAN | https://github.com/sabahattink/codediag/.github/workflows/release.yml@refs/tags/v0.13.0 |
| Rekor log index | 3648654580 |
| Predicate type | SLSA build provenance https://slsa.dev/provenance/v1 |
| Subject digest | sha512:af2a76f8f0a652847cb79514f65fc61d6643c7dcc62426080156e0ef0c204dcaff5876f3b8e0cbfe7883e816f75c516f3d695298d1ce70f1fe89b2f20 |
Background: How many MCP packages publish verified provenance →
Vulnerabilities 1 finding
| ID | CVE | Severity | Vector | Fix available |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GHSA-g3hv-75wg-m249 | CVE-2026-118764 | medium | yes |
Background: What a vulnerability scan can and cannot prove →
Dependencies 40 packages
| Packages resolved | 40 |
|---|---|
| Stale | 10 |
| No linked repository | 1 |
| Tree resolution | Complete |
Background: SBOMs and build attestations, explained →
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
explain_rule Explain a CodeDiag rule ~70
Explain a CodeDiag rule ID (the ID in a finding, such as missing-auth-check): what it detects, its severity, CWE and OWASP mapping, documentation link, and how to suppress a finding that is intentional.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | string | yes | The rule ID, for example missing-auth-check. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| analyzer | string | yes | – |
| cwe | array | yes | – |
| defaultSeverity | string | yes | – |
| description | string | yes | – |
| docs | string | yes | – |
| id | string | yes | – |
| owasp | array | yes | – |
| suppress | string | yes | – |
| title | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
find_unprotected_routes Find unprotected API routes ~192
List the API routes, form actions, and procedures in a Node.js project that anyone can call: no recognizable auth check, or no input validation. Understands where auth runs in Next.js, SvelteKit, React Router/Remix, Express, Fastify, Hono, Elysia, NestJS, and tRPC (middleware and its matcher, hooks, guards, route middleware, tRPC context). Runs offline. Static analysis: read the cited file before calling a route vulnerable.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | string | – | auth: routes without an auth check; validation: routes without input validation; both (default). |
| maxResults | integer | – | The most routes to return. Defaults to 100. |
| path | string | – | Absolute path of the project directory. Pass it: the server's working directory may not be the project. A relative path resolves against that working directory, the default. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | string | yes | – |
| framework | string | yes | – |
| omitted | number | yes | – |
| project | string | yes | – |
| routes | array | yes | – |
| summary | string | yes | – |
| supported | boolean | yes | – |
| suppressed | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
scan_project Scan project health ~182
Run a full CodeDiag scan of a Node.js project: a 0-100 health score with API health, security, dependency, test, and structure findings, each with a rule ID, file, line, and suggested fix. Security includes Supabase tables without row level security, from supabase/migrations. Most severe findings first. Offline unless audit is true.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| audit | boolean | – | Also run the package manager's vulnerability audit, which needs network access. Defaults to false. |
| maxFindings | integer | – | The most findings to return. Defaults to 50. |
| minSeverity | string | – | Leave out findings below this severity. Defaults to warning. |
| path | string | – | Absolute path of the project directory. Pass it: the server's working directory may not be the project. A relative path resolves against that working directory, the default. |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| analyzers | array | yes | – |
| directory | string | yes | – |
| findings | array | yes | – |
| framework | string | yes | – |
| grade | string | yes | – |
| omitted | number | yes | – |
| project | string | yes | – |
| score | number | yes | – |
| summary | string | yes | – |
No examples provided.
How do I install the CodeDiag MCP server?
CodeDiag runs locally as an npm package, launched with npx -y @sabahattink/codediag. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
npm · @sabahattink/codediag
claude mcp add sabahattink-codediag -- npx -y @sabahattink/codediag
What is the CodeDiag MCP server?
CodeDiag is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as io.github.sabahattink/codediag. Find Node.js API routes with no auth check or input validation, and scan project health. This page covers its npm package (@sabahattink/codediag).
Is the CodeDiag MCP server safe to use?
CodeDiag scores 81 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. We recorded 1 known advisory against it as of 5 November 2026. It declares no install or post-install scripts. Its build provenance is signed and verified. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the CodeDiag MCP server expose?
CodeDiag exposes 3 tools: find_unprotected_routes, scan_project, explain_rule. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 444 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Is the CodeDiag MCP server still maintained?
CodeDiag is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.
What licence is the CodeDiag MCP server under?
CodeDiag declares the MIT licence, which is OSI-approved. That covers the source only, and says nothing about the cost of any service it calls.