Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-13 00:34 UTC

Automattic / juice

Juice inlines CSS stylesheets into your HTML source.

JavaScript · HTMLMIT★ 3,275 stars⑂ 233 forkssince Oct 2011View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

Automattic/juice holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (53/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AutomatticOrganization

3,279 followers1,388 public repossince Jul 2011

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
npm	juice	12.1.2	12,206,902	89	8 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

83Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
18.7/36	Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 146 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	146
human_commit_share	0.7
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	27

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 63 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~30.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	63
latest_release_tag	v12.1.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	8
mean_days_between_releases	30.6

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?

85Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

88Excellent

How it's scored

57/60	Stars — 3,275 stars
19.7/25	Forks — 233 forks
11.8/15	Watchers — 132 watchers

Inputs used

forks	233
stars	3,275
watchers	132
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 12,206,902 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	juice
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	12,206,902
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 66 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 34 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	66
top_contributor_share	0.37

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate

How it's scored

36.8/42	Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
19.2/30	PR acceptance — 251/393 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	251
open_issues	31
closed_issues	219
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.876
closed_unmerged_prs	142
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

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25	Owner reach — 3,279 followers of Automattic
25/25	Track record — 1,388 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	3,279
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	Automattic
public_repos	1,388
account_age_days	5,521

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20	Version history — 89 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	juice
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 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 — 13 out of 13 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

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	email, css, html, inline
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

51Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 34 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.1

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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	42
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:juice@12.1.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 42 packages. 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 60 of 70 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.857
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — test/typescript/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 30 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	test/typescript/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.3

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (test/typescript/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/17 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	34,250
source_files_sampled	17
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

3,275GitHub stars

66contributors

146commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

63releases

2bus factor

31open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 233 ⇿

0Stars

233Forks

62Releases

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 11Minor 17Patch 27

Each point covers 14 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10

5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-13 00:34 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	13 out of 13 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 34 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	cheerio	`1.2.0`	package.json
npm	commander	`^14.0.3`	package.json
npm	entities	`^8.0.0`	package.json
npm	postcss	`^8.5.0`	package.json
npm	postcss-nesting	`^14.0.0`	package.json
npm	postcss-safe-parser	`^7.0.1`	package.json
npm	postcss-selector-parser	`^7.1.0`	package.json
npm	web-resource-inliner	`^8.0.0`	package.json

All dependencies 141

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 130 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	cheerio	`1.2.0`	direct
npm	commander	`14.0.3`	direct
npm	entities	`4.5.0`	direct
npm	entities	`6.0.1`	direct
npm	entities	`7.0.1`	direct
npm	entities	`8.0.0`	direct
npm	postcss	`8.5.26`	direct
npm	postcss-nesting	`14.0.1`	direct
npm	postcss-safe-parser	`7.0.1`	direct
npm	postcss-selector-parser	`7.1.5`	direct
npm	web-resource-inliner	`8.0.0`	direct
npm	@babel/helper-string-parser	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-identifier	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/parser	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/types	`7.29.7`	indirect
npm	@bcoe/v8-coverage	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	@csstools/selector-resolve-nested	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	@csstools/selector-specificity	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/core	`1.11.1`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/runtime	`1.11.1`	indirect
npm	@emnapi/wasi-threads	`1.2.2`	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	@napi-rs/wasm-runtime	`1.1.6`	indirect
npm	@oxc-project/types	`0.138.0`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-android-arm64	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm64	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-x64	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x64	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm64	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-wasm32-wasi	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/pluginutils	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@standard-schema/spec	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@tybys/wasm-util	`0.10.3`	indirect
npm	@types/chai	`5.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/deep-eql	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`26.1.2`	indirect
npm	@vitest/coverage-v8	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/expect	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/mocker	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/pretty-format	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/runner	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/snapshot	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/spy	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	@vitest/utils	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	ansi-colors	`4.1.3`	indirect
npm	assertion-error	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	ast-v8-to-istanbul	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	boolbase	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	chai	`6.2.2`	indirect
npm	cheerio-select	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	convert-source-map	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	css-select	`5.2.2`	indirect
npm	css-what	`6.2.2`	indirect
npm	cssesc	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	dom-serializer	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	domelementtype	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	domhandler	`5.0.3`	indirect
npm	domutils	`3.2.2`	indirect
npm	encoding-sniffer	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	escape-goat	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	expect-type	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	html-escaper	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	htmlparser2	`10.1.0`	indirect
npm	htmlparser2	`9.1.0`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	istanbul-lib-coverage	`3.2.2`	indirect
npm	istanbul-lib-report	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	istanbul-reports	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`10.0.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-android-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-arm64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-freebsd-x64	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-gnu	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-musl	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-x64-msvc	`1.32.0`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	magicast	`0.5.3`	indirect
npm	make-dir	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	mime	`2.6.0`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.18`	indirect
npm	nth-check	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	obug	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	parse5	`7.3.0`	indirect
npm	parse5-htmlparser2-tree-adapter	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	parse5-parser-stream	`7.1.2`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	pathe	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	rolldown	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.8.1`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	siginfo	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	stackback	`0.0.2`	indirect
npm	std-env	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	tinybench	`2.9.0`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	tinyrainbow	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.8.1`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	undici	`7.29.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`8.3.0`	indirect
npm	util-deprecate	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	valid-data-url	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	vite	`8.1.3`	indirect
npm	vitest	`4.1.10`	indirect
npm	whatwg-encoding	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-mimetype	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	why-is-node-running	`2.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:juice@12.1.2 pulls in 42 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.31.0 — 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