Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 07:29 UTC

PeculiarVentures / x509

@peculiar/x509 is an easy to use TypeScript/Javascript library based on @peculiar/asn1-schema that makes generating X.509 Certificates and Certificate Requests as well as validating certificate chains easy

TypeScriptMIT★ 134 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Sep 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryWeb interfacehow this is determined

PeculiarVentures/x509 holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Security (41/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

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)
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

PeculiarVenturesOrganization · verified domain
92 followers79 public repossince Sep 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@peculiar/x5092.1.040,915,2435810 days agocertificatecmscsrecpkcs10pkcs7rsax509

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
15/18Commit volume — 46 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year46
human_commit_share0.91
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 8 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~64.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases64.4
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?

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.5/60Stars — 134 stars
11.5/25Forks — 25 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks25
stars134
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 40,915,243 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@peculiar/x509
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads40,915,243
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.858
How it's scored
27.4/42Issue resolution — 65% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance — 57/66 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs57
open_issues24
closed_issues45
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.652
closed_unmerged_prs9
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
20/20Verified domain
14.2/25Owner reach — 92 followers of PeculiarVentures
25/25Track record — 79 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers92
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginPeculiarVentures
public_repos79
account_age_days4,389

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history — 58 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@peculiar/x509
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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://peculiarventures.github.io/x509/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsx509, certificate, csr, pkcs10, pkcs7, cms, rsa, ecc
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://peculiarventures.github.io/x509/
docs_sitehttps://peculiarventures.github.io/x509/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 82 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier26
security_posture_before_jurisdiction53
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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_packages19
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:@peculiar/x509@2.1.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 19 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.

60Moderate · 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 — 82 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.901
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 — tsconfig.json, website/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json, website/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes48,741
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

134GitHub stars
14contributors
46commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
8releases
1bus 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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 25 ⇿
0Stars
25Forks
8Releases

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.

05101520252512021-032023-122026-09
Major 1Minor 3Patch 4

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 07:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 12/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 18 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities82 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@peculiar/asn1-cms^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-csr^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-ecc^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-pkcs9^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-rsa^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-schema^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-x509^2.9.4package.json
npm@peculiar/asn1-x509-post-quantum^2.9.4package.json
npmpvtsutils^1.3.6package.json
npmtslib^2.8.1package.json
npmtsyringe^4.10.0package.json
npm@docusaurus/core^3.9.2website/package.json
npm@docusaurus/preset-classic^3.9.2website/package.json
npm@docusaurus/remark-plugin-npm2yarn^3.9.2website/package.json
npm@mdx-js/react^3.1.1website/package.json
npmclsx^2.1.1website/package.json
npmprism-react-renderer^2.4.1website/package.json
npmreact^18.3.1website/package.json
npmreact-dom^18.3.1website/package.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:@peculiar/x509@2.1.0 pulls in 19 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.