Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 08:52 UTC

7rulnik / source-map-js

Consume and generate source maps.

JavaScriptCustom license★ 102 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Jan 2021forkView on GitHub ↗

7rulnik/source-map-js holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (60/100) and lowest on Vitality (34/100). It was last updated 128 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met

Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps

Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable

Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended

Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas

At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution

Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Valentin SemirulnikPersonal account

363 followers117 public repossince Nov 2013@KosyanMedia

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
npm	source-map-js	1.2.1	666,321,119	8	737 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

34At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

28At Risk

How it's scored

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 128 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18	Commit volume — 70 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	70
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	128
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

44Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 7 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 737 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~173.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	7
latest_release_tag	v1.2.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	737
mean_days_between_releases	173.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

48Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak

How it's scored

32.5/60	Stars — 102 stars
9/25	Forks — 13 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	13
stars	102
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

19Critical

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 666,321,119 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	source-map-js
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	666,321,119
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 63 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	63
top_contributor_share	0.541

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good

How it's scored

30.8/42	Issue resolution — 73% of issues closed
27.9/30	PR acceptance — 54/58 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	54
open_issues	4
closed_issues	11
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.733
closed_unmerged_prs	4
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

67Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.4/25	Owner reach — 363 followers of 7rulnik
25/25	Track record — 117 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	363
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	7rulnik
public_repos	117
account_age_days	4,684

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 737 days ago
20/20	Version history — 8 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	source-map-js
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	737

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

45Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

10Critical

How it's scored

0/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

28At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	2.8

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	9
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	64
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 3, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 64 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

39Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

29At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
29.3/40	Legible commit history — 55 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.55
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

42Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.09
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
49.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 5/51 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	15,927,873
source_files_sampled	51
oversized_source_files	5

Key facts

102GitHub stars

63contributors

70commits, last 12 months

128days since last push

7releases

1bus factor

4open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Community profile unavailable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 13 ⇿

0Stars

13Forks

7Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

Major 1Minor 2Patch 4

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10

2.8aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-16 08:51 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
1	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 33 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1	Vulnerabilities	9 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 64

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 64 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@jridgewell/gen-mapping	`0.3.13`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/resolve-uri	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/trace-mapping	`0.3.31`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.scandir	`2.1.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.stat	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.walk	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	anchor-markdown-header	`0.5.7`	indirect
npm	benchmark	`2.1.4`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	clean-publish	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	core-util-is	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.3`	indirect
npm	doctoc	`0.15.0`	indirect
npm	dom-serializer	`0.2.2`	indirect
npm	domelementtype	`1.3.1`	indirect
npm	domelementtype	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	domhandler	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	domutils	`1.5.1`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`6.1.3`	indirect
npm	entities	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	entities	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	fast-glob	`3.2.7`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.13.0`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.0.1`	indirect
npm	fs-extra	`10.0.0`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.8`	indirect
npm	htmlparser2	`3.7.3`	indirect
npm	inherits	`2.0.4`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	isarray	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	jsonfile	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	lilconfig	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.18.1`	indirect
npm	lodash.sortby	`4.7.0`	indirect
npm	merge2	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	minimist	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	platform	`1.3.6`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	queue-microtask	`1.2.3`	indirect
npm	readable-stream	`1.1.13`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.0.4`	indirect
npm	run-parallel	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	source-map-js-latest	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	source-map-wasm	`0.8.0-beta.0`	indirect
npm	string_decoder	`0.10.31`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	tr46	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	underscore	`1.12.0`	indirect
npm	universalify	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	update-section	`0.3.3`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 64 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
minimist	`1.1.3`	indirect	critical	2	`1.2.6`
underscore	`1.12.0`	indirect	critical	2	`1.13.8`
braces	`3.0.2`	indirect	high	1	`3.0.3`
cross-spawn	`7.0.3`	indirect	high	1	`7.0.5`
picomatch	`2.3.0`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`
micromatch	`4.0.4`	indirect	moderate	1	`4.0.8`

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — npm.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records