Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 15:04 UTC

InsForge / InsForge-sdk-js

TypeScriptApache-2.0★ 11 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Aug 2025View on GitHub ↗

InsForge/InsForge-sdk-js holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Security (46/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

InsForgeOrganization · verified domain
231 followers34 public repossince Feb 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@insforge/sdk1.5.270,90118982 days agoinsforgebaasbackendsdktypescriptjavascriptclient

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
24.9/36Commit cadence — 36/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 407 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year407
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year36

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 5 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 82 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~36.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.5.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release82
mean_days_between_releases36.7

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars — 11 stars
10.8/25Forks — 21 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars11
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
64.7/80Monthly downloads — 70,901 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@insforge/sdk
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads70,901
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.329
How it's scored
18.6/42Issue resolution — 44% of issues closed
25.8/30PR acceptance — 91/106 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues24
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.442
closed_unmerged_prs15
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
17/25Owner reach — 231 followers of InsForge
14.6/25Track record — 34 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers231
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginInsForge
public_repos34
account_age_days620

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 82 days ago
20/20Version history — 189 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@insforge/sdk
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish82

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjavascript, typescript
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilespackage-lock.json
manifestspackage.json
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages16
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:@insforge/sdk@1.5.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 16 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.

85Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 88 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.946
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,666
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 21 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.21
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/51 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes52,896
source_files_sampled51
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

11GitHub stars
13contributors
407commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
5releases
2bus factor
24open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/InsForge/InsForge-sdk-js: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-10-22T15:04:11Z. Please include `B76E:2D0559:857BB1A:C1E1C29:6ADA25E8` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 21 ⇿
0Stars
21Forks
5Releases

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.

048121620242132025-102026-042026-10
Major 0Minor 1Patch 4
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@insforge/shared-schemas^1.2.1package.json
npm@supabase/postgrest-js^1.21.3package.json
npmsocket.io-client^4.8.1package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@insforge/sdk@1.5.2 pulls in 16 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.

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.