Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-30 11:14 UTC

Sigfried / supergroup

Supergroup brings extreme convenience and understandability to the manipulation of Javascript data collections, especially in the context of D3.js visualization programming.

HTML · JavaScript · TypeScriptMIT★ 89 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Dec 2013View on GitHub ↗

Sigfried/supergroup holds a health index of 47 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (54/100) and lowest on Vitality (40/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

47
overall / 100
Weak

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.

47
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sigfried GoldPersonal account
26 followers87 public repossince Mar 2012

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
npmsupergroup2.0.02,8113432 days agogroupbyhierarchytreedagpolyhierarchyd3sequencecomparerecords

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

40Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 44 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence2/52 weeks with commits
16.2/18Commit volume63 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year63
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year2
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases5 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 4,062 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~140.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.0.13
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release4,062
mean_days_between_releases140.4
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.5/60Stars89 stars
8.7/25Forks12 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars89
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
46/80Monthly downloads2,811 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessupergroup
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,811
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.988
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution50% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance3/4 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs3
open_issues8
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.3/25Owner reach26 followers of Sigfried
25/25Track record87 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers26
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginSigfried
public_repos87
account_age_days5,266
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 32 days ago
20/20Version history34 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessupergroup
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish32

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://sigfried.github.io/supergroup/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://sigfried.github.io/supergroup/
docs_sitehttp://sigfried.github.io/supergroup/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages102
unassessed_packages19
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 1
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 102 resolved dependencies against OSV. 19 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.6/40Legible commit history33 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.33
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 checkingtsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice36 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.36
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codeHTML with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes3/58 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes325,787
source_files_sampled58
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

89GitHub stars
2contributors
63commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
8open 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 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
3Releases

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.

0246810121222015-032018-042021-04
Major 1Minor 0Patch 2

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-30 11:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 121

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 121 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/openharmony-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.28.1indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.28.1indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-android-arm-eabi4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-android-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-darwin-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-freebsd-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-freebsd-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-gnueabihf4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-musleabihf4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-s390x-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-openbsd-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-openharmony-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-ia32-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@types/chai5.2.3indirect
npm@types/deep-eql4.0.2indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@vitest/expect3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/mocker3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/pretty-format3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/runner3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/snapshot3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/spy3.2.7indirect
npm@vitest/utils3.2.7indirect
npmassertion-error2.0.1indirect
npmbrowserify~3.19.1indirect
npmcac6.7.14indirect
npmchai5.3.3indirect
npmcheck-error2.1.3indirect
npmdeamdify~0.1.1indirect
npmdebowerify~0.5.1indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdecomponentify0.0.3indirect
npmdeep-eql5.0.2indirect
npmdeglobalify~0.2.0indirect
npmes-module-lexer1.7.0indirect
npmesbuild0.28.1indirect
npmestree-walker3.0.3indirect
npmexpect-type1.4.0indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmgroc~0.6.1indirect
npmgrunt-browserify~1.3.0indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-jshint~0.7.2indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-watch~0.5.3indirect
npmgrunt-groc~0.4.0indirect
npmjs-tokens9.0.1indirect
npmkarma~0.10.8indirect
npmkarma-chrome-launcher~0.1.1indirect
npmkarma-coffee-preprocessor~0.1.1indirect
npmkarma-firefox-launcher~0.1.2indirect
npmkarma-html2js-preprocessor~0.1.0indirect
npmkarma-jasmine~0.1.4indirect
npmkarma-phantomjs-launcher~0.1.1indirect
npmkarma-requirejs~0.2.0indirect
npmkarma-script-launcher~0.1.0indirect
npmloupe3.2.1indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.21indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnanoid3.3.16indirect
npmpathe2.0.3indirect
npmpathval2.0.1indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmpostcss8.5.19indirect
npmrequirejs~2.1.9indirect
npmrollup4.62.2indirect
npmsiginfo2.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmstackback0.0.2indirect
npmstd-env3.10.0indirect
npmstrip-literal3.1.0indirect
npmtinybench2.9.0indirect
npmtinyexec0.3.2indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtinypool1.1.1indirect
npmtinyrainbow2.0.0indirect
npmtinyspy4.0.4indirect
npmtypescript5.9.3indirect
npmvite7.3.6indirect
npmvite-node3.2.4indirect
npmvitest3.2.7indirect
npmwhy-is-node-running2.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 102 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 19 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
nanoid3.3.16indirecthigh15.1.6
postcss8.5.19indirectmoderate18.5.23

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 statisticsnpm.