Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 10:43 UTC

DocuBook / docubook

A markdown-first documentation framework. Write with common mark and directives, compile to flat static HTML.

TypeScript · MDXMIT★ 18 stars⑂ 5 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined

DocuBook/docubook holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DocuBookOrganization
1 follower3 public repossince May 2025

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

90Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,150 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,150
human_commit_share0.78
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year29

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.3
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars — 18 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars18
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.2/80Monthly downloads — 5,825 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@docubook/core, @docubook/flame, @docubook/markdown, @docubook/ui-react, @docubook/themes-colors
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,825
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.971
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance — 224/238 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs224
open_issues0
closed_issues142
prs_merged_7d17
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d32
prs_decided_30d32
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of DocuBook
7/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginDocuBook
public_repos3
account_age_days473

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 5 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 50 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@docubook/core, @docubook/flame, @docubook/markdown, @docubook/ui-react, @docubook/themes-colors
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docubook.pro
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdocker, docker-image, docs, react, gitbook, mintlify, nextjs, react-router, bun, vite, docusaurus, nextra, vitepress
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docubook.pro
docs_sitehttps://docubook.pro
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages15
unassessed_packages48
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 15 resolved dependencies against OSV. 48 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 77 of 78 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — packages/core/tsconfig.json, packages/flame/tsconfig.json, packages/markdown/tsconfig.json, packages/themes-colors/tsconfig.json, packages/ui-react/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configspackages/core/tsconfig.json, packages/flame/tsconfig.json, packages/markdown/tsconfig.json, packages/themes-colors/tsconfig.json, packages/ui-react/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/220 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes26,368
source_files_sampled220
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
2contributors
1,150commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index npm:@docubook/core@2.0.1; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks

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.

12345512026-042026-062026-09
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 10:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 12 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 34
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@11ty/gray-matter^3.0.0packages/core/package.json
npm@mdx-js/mdx^3.0.1packages/core/package.json
npm@mdx-js/react^3.0.1packages/core/package.json
npmclsx^2.1.1packages/core/package.json
npmrehype-autolink-headings^7.1.0packages/core/package.json
npmrehype-code-titles^1.2.1packages/core/package.json
npmrehype-prism-plus^2.0.2packages/core/package.json
npmrehype-slug^6.0.0packages/core/package.json
npmremark-directive^4.0.0packages/core/package.json
npmremark-gfm^4.0.1packages/core/package.json
npmtailwind-merge^3.6.0packages/core/package.json
npmunist-util-remove^4.0.0packages/core/package.json
npmunist-util-visit^5.1.0packages/core/package.json
npmvfile^6.0.1packages/core/package.json
npmvfile-matter^5.0.0packages/core/package.json
npmzod^4.4.3packages/core/package.json
npm@docubook/coreworkspace:^packages/flame/package.json
npm@docubook/markdownworkspace:^packages/flame/package.json
npm@docubook/themes-colorsworkspace:^packages/flame/package.json
npm@docubook/ui-reactworkspace:^packages/flame/package.json
npm@mdx-js/react^3.0.1packages/flame/package.json
npm@tailwindcss/cli4.3.0packages/flame/package.json
npm@tailwindcss/typography0.5.16packages/flame/package.json
npmbun-plugin-tailwind^0.1.2packages/flame/package.json
npmdaisyui^5.5.19packages/flame/package.json
npmlucide-react^1.14.0packages/flame/package.json
npmreact^19.2.7packages/flame/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.7packages/flame/package.json
npmunified^11.0.0packages/flame/package.json
npmvite^8.2.1packages/flame/package.json
npmzod^4.4.3packages/flame/package.json
npmmermaid^11.16.1packages/markdown/package.json
npmclsx^2.1.1packages/ui-react/package.json
npmtailwind-merge^2.6.1packages/ui-react/package.json
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 31 direct and 32 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@11ty/gray-matter^3.0.0direct
npm@mdx-js/mdx^3.0.1direct
npm@mdx-js/react^3.0.1direct
npm@tailwindcss/cli4.3.0direct
npm@tailwindcss/typography0.5.16direct
npmbun-plugin-tailwind^0.1.2direct
npmclsx^2.1.1direct
npmdaisyui^5.5.19direct
npmlucide-react^1.14.0direct
npmlucide-react^1.7.0direct
npmmermaid^11.16.1direct
npmreact^19.0.0direct
npmreact^19.2.0direct
npmreact^19.2.7direct
npmreact-dom^19.2.0direct
npmreact-dom^19.2.7direct
npmrehype-autolink-headings^7.1.0direct
npmrehype-code-titles^1.2.1direct
npmrehype-prism-plus^2.0.2direct
npmrehype-slug^6.0.0direct
npmremark-directive^4.0.0direct
npmremark-gfm^4.0.1direct
npmtailwind-merge^2.6.1direct
npmtailwind-merge^3.6.0direct
npmunified^11.0.0direct
npmunist-util-remove^4.0.0direct
npmunist-util-visit^5.1.0direct
npmvfile^6.0.1direct
npmvfile-matter^5.0.0direct
npmvite^8.2.1direct
npmzod^4.4.3direct
npm@docubook/flamelatestindirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm64-musl12.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x64-musl12.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@testing-library/jest-dom^6.9.1indirect
npm@testing-library/react^16.3.0indirect
npm@testing-library/react^16.3.2indirect
npm@types/mdast^4.0.4indirect
npm@types/node^20.19.43indirect
npm@types/node^22.0.0indirect
npm@types/node^25.9.2indirect
npm@types/react19.2.17indirect
npm@types/react19.2.18indirect
npm@types/react^19.0.0indirect
npm@types/react^19.2.0indirect
npm@types/react-dom19.2.3indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19.0.0indirect
npm@types/unist^3.0.3indirect
npm@vitest/coverage-v8^4.1.8indirect
npmbun-types^1.4.0indirect
npmjsdom^26.1.0indirect
npmjsdom^29.1.1indirect
npmmdast-util-directive^3.1.0indirect
npmpnpm12.3.4indirect
npmreact-icons^5.0.0indirect
npmtailwindcss^4.3.0indirect
npmtypescript^7.0.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 15 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 48 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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.