Code RadarLOCAL SAST GATE
AccountGitHubInstall Radar

JavaScript security scanning for local and CI review.

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

Scan this language locallyView supported rules
radar scan . --quick

What JavaScript means here.

Code Radar reviews JavaScript repositories where they live, combining supported source checks, secret detection, dependency evidence, code-health signals, and portable reports in one local workflow.

Language security

Evidence to inspect

Verify the input scope, 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.
Language security

Scan this language locally

Verify the input scope, finding detail, workflow handoff, and product boundary before you install or buy.

Scan this language locally

The problem this page helps clarify

The useful question is where JavaScript changes the review loop: what enters the scan, who acts on a finding, and which evidence moves forward. JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.

  • Audience: Developers maintaining JavaScript repositories and their dependency manifests.
  • Focus: JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.
  • Review question: What does JavaScript cover in practice?

Coverage and concrete signals

For JavaScript, inspect the concrete scope below instead of relying on a category label. File-level source findings, secret checks, dependency advisories, and SARIF-ready output for JavaScript.

  • Focus: JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.
  • Workflow: Files: .js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json
  • Coverage and concrete signals: .js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json, npm and lockfile advisories, SARIF
FocusExact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.Boundary
JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.File-level source findings, secret checks, dependency advisories, and SARIF-ready output for JavaScript.Coverage depends on parsers, manifests, lockfiles, and rules; runtime behavior still needs complementary testing.

From local signal to shared gate.

JavaScript: Use the smallest workflow that proves value. Each later step should reuse evidence the team already understands. JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.

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

Evidence to inspect before you trust the result.

JavaScript: 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. File-level source findings, secret checks, dependency advisories, and SARIF-ready output for JavaScript.

  • Files: .js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json
  • Exact file location, rule context, severity, confidence, and remediation guidance.
  • Terminal output, SARIF, JSON, or HTML artifacts generated from the same finding set.
  • Source stays in the workspace or CI runner where the scan executes.

Good fit and limits

Use JavaScript when Developers maintaining JavaScript repositories and their dependency manifests. Keep the boundary explicit: Coverage depends on parsers, manifests, lockfiles, and rules; runtime behavior still needs complementary testing.

Run the local proof before adopting a shared gate.

  • Good fit: Developers maintaining JavaScript repositories and their dependency manifests.
  • Not a fit / do not overreach: Coverage depends on parsers, manifests, lockfiles, and rules; runtime behavior still needs complementary testing.

Questions to verify before rollout

These questions keep the decision tied to observable evidence rather than a broad product promise.

What does JavaScript cover in practice?

JavaScript: The practical scope is JavaScript source files (.js, .jsx, package.json, package-lock.json) plus npm and lockfile advisories evidence in one local review path.. Start with the listed entities or files and confirm the result on representative code.

Which evidence should I inspect for JavaScript?

JavaScript: Inspect File-level source findings, secret checks, dependency advisories, and SARIF-ready output for JavaScript. Keep the source location, rule or comparison context, and exported artifact together.

What should I not infer from JavaScript?

JavaScript: Do not infer universal coverage. Coverage depends on parsers, manifests, lockfiles, and rules; runtime behavior still needs complementary testing. Use the relevant comparison or workflow page to test the boundary before changing policy.

What should I try first for JavaScript?

JavaScript: Start with a local run, review one real finding, then choose the linked report, agent, CI, or trust workflow that matches the next decision.

Feature: sastChoose the next page that matches the remaining implementation or evaluation step.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.
Language security

Start with the problem you need to solve.

Open page →
Local SASTLocal SAST for Developers and CI

Developer-first static application security testing that scans source locally, emits SARIF for GitHub code scanning, and gives coding agents deterministic fix context.

RulesSupported security rules

Inspect rule scope, evidence, and safer code paths.

ProofSee sample report

Inspect the fields and formats in a sample finding.

Validate the workflow on your own code.

Start with one local scan, inspect the evidence, and expand to reports, agents, or CI only when the signal is useful.

Scan this language locallyView supported rules