Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 00:00 UTC

Luligu / node-ansi-logger

Enhanced Color-Coded Logging for Node.js in type script

TypeScript · JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2024View on GitHub ↗

Luligu/node-ansi-logger holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LuliguPersonal account
81 followers38 public repossince Apr 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmnode-ansi-logger3.3.1112,6525118 days agonode-ansi-loggeransi-escapecolorloggerloggingconsoleterminalfilelogger

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
14.9/18Commit volume — 45 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year45
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 18 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~83 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tag3.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases83
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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges10
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
67.4/80Monthly downloads — 112,652 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesnode-ansi-logger
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads112,652
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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 9/9 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs9
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.8/25Owner reach — 81 followers of Luligu
18.4/25Track record — 38 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers81
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginLuligu
public_repos38
account_age_days1,236
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 18 days ago
20/20Version history — 51 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnode-ansi-logger
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish18

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
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_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/Luligu/node-ansi-logger/blob/main/README.md
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttps://github.com/Luligu/node-ansi-logger/blob/main/README.md
docs_sitehttps://github.com/Luligu/node-ansi-logger/blob/main/README.md
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
5/5SAST — SAST tool detected: CodeQL
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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_packages145
unassessed_packages0
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 145 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/testing/testing.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://oxc.rs/llms.txt)
5.3/40Legible commit history — 10 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://oxc.rs/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/testing/testing.instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,154
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, lockfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes38,836
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
45commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 00:00 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 145

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 145 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/helper-string-parser7.29.7indirect
npm@babel/helper-validator-identifier7.29.7indirect
npm@babel/parser7.29.8indirect
npm@babel/types7.29.8indirect
npm@bcoe/v8-coverage1.0.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.6.0indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@oxc-project/types0.149.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-android-arm-eabi0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-android-arm640.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-darwin-arm640.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-darwin-x640.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-freebsd-x640.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm-musleabihf0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm64-gnu0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm64-musl0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-riscv64-gnu0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-riscv64-musl0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-s390x-gnu0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-x64-gnu0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-x64-musl0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-openharmony-arm640.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-arm64-msvc0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-ia32-msvc0.67.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-x64-msvc0.67.0indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/darwin-arm647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/darwin-x647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/linux-arm647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/linux-x647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/win32-arm647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint-tsgolint/win32-x647.0.2001indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-android-arm-eabi1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-android-arm641.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-darwin-arm641.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-darwin-x641.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-freebsd-x641.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm-musleabihf1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-riscv64-gnu1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-riscv64-musl1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-x64-musl1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-openharmony-arm641.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-ia32-msvc1.82.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.82.0indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm-eabi1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm641.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm641.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-x641.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x641.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm641.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.2.8indirect
npm@rolldown/pluginutils1.0.1indirect
npm@types/chai5.2.3indirect
npm@types/deep-eql4.0.2indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@types/node24.13.4indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-aix-ppc647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-darwin-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-darwin-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-freebsd-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-freebsd-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-arm7.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-loong647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-mips64el7.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-ppc647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-riscv647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-s390x7.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-linux-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-netbsd-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-netbsd-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-openbsd-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-openbsd-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-sunos-x647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-win32-arm647.0.2indirect
npm@typescript/typescript-win32-x647.0.2indirect
npm@vitest/coverage-v85.0.0indirect
npm@vitest/istanbul-lib-coverage1.0.1indirect
npm@vitest/istanbul-lib-report1.0.1indirect
npm@vitest/mocker5.0.0indirect
npm@vitest/spy5.0.0indirect
npmassertion-error2.0.1indirect
npmast-v8-to-istanbul1.0.6indirect
npmchai6.2.2indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmes-module-lexer2.3.2indirect
npmestree-walker3.0.3indirect
npmexpect-type1.4.0indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmjs-tokens10.0.0indirect
npmlightningcss1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-android-arm641.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-arm641.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-x641.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-freebsd-x641.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-musl1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-gnu1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-musl1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc1.33.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-x64-msvc1.33.0indirect
npmmagic-string1.3.1indirect
npmmagicast0.5.5indirect
npmnanoid3.3.19indirect
npmobug2.2.1indirect
npmoxfmt0.67.0indirect
npmoxlint1.82.0indirect
npmoxlint-tsgolint7.0.2001indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.7indirect
npmpostcss8.5.28indirect
npmrolldown1.2.8indirect
npmsiginfo2.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmstackback0.0.2indirect
npmstd-env4.2.0indirect
npmtinybench6.1.4indirect
npmtinyexec1.3.0indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtinypool2.1.2indirect
npmtinyrainbow3.1.1indirect
npmtypescript7.0.2indirect
npmundici-types7.18.2indirect
npmvite8.3.0indirect
npmvitest5.0.0indirect
npmwhy-is-node-running2.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 145 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.