Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 08:47 UTC

WebReflection / utils

A collection of utility functions.

JavaScriptMIT★ 22 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

WebReflection/utils 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 AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated 5 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

Andrea GiammarchiPersonal account
2,321 followers621 public repossince May 2009

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
npm@webreflection/utils0.4.1612,3948521 days agosharedutilityutils

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 5 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 196 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year196
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 84 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 21 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count84
latest_release_tagv0.4.16
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release21
mean_days_between_releases1.4
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars — 22 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars22
watchers1
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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
54.6/80Monthly downloads — 12,394 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@webreflection/utils
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads12,394
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?

59Moderate · 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
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.2/30PR acceptance — 7/8 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
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): 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
24.2/25Owner reach — 2,321 followers of WebReflection
25/25Track record — 621 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,321
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginWebReflection
public_repos621
account_age_days6,323
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 21 days ago
20/20Version history — 85 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@webreflection/utils
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish21

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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://webreflection.github.io/utils/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsutilities, web
has_wikino
homepagehttps://webreflection.github.io/utils/
docs_sitehttps://webreflection.github.io/utils/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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 0/27 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages75
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 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 75 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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.1/40Legible commit history — 2 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.02
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — 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
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 2/177 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes286,230
source_files_sampled177
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

22GitHub stars
1contributors
196commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
84releases
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 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 08:47 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 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 0/27 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 75

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@bcoe/v8-coverage1.0.2indirect
npm@istanbuljs/schema0.1.6indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@types/istanbul-lib-coverage2.0.6indirect
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
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.3indirect
npmbalanced-match4.0.4indirect
npmbrace-expansion5.0.8indirect
npmc812.0.0indirect
npmcliui9.0.1indirect
npmconvert-source-map2.0.0indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.6indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmfind-up5.0.0indirect
npmforeground-child3.3.1indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmget-east-asian-width1.6.0indirect
npmglob13.0.6indirect
npmhas-flag4.0.0indirect
npmhtml-escaper2.0.2indirect
npmisexe2.0.0indirect
npmistanbul-lib-coverage3.2.2indirect
npmistanbul-lib-report3.0.1indirect
npmistanbul-reports3.2.0indirect
npmlocate-path6.0.0indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.2indirect
npmmake-dir4.0.0indirect
npmminimatch10.2.6indirect
npmminipass7.1.3indirect
npmp-limit3.1.0indirect
npmp-locate5.0.0indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmpath-scurry2.0.2indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmshebang-command2.0.0indirect
npmshebang-regex3.0.0indirect
npmsignal-exit4.1.0indirect
npmstring-width7.2.0indirect
npmstring-width8.2.2indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.2.0indirect
npmsupports-color7.2.0indirect
npmtest-exclude8.0.0indirect
npmtypescript7.0.2indirect
npmv8-to-istanbul9.3.0indirect
npmwhich2.0.2indirect
npmwrap-ansi9.0.2indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs18.1.0indirect
npmyargs-parser21.1.1indirect
npmyargs-parser22.0.0indirect
npmyocto-queue0.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 75 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
brace-expansion5.0.8indirecthigh15.0.9

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.