Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 15:00 UTC

adam-p / markdown-here

Google Chrome, Firefox, and Thunderbird extension that lets you write email in Markdown and render it before sending.

JavaScript · CSSMIT★ 60,249 stars⑂ 11,010 forkssince May 2012View on GitHub ↗

adam-p/markdown-here holds a health index of 38 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 390 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

38
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.

38
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 47 is calibrated to 45 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Adam PritchardPersonal account
1,682 followers66 public repossince Oct 2010Psiphon Inc., Proven Security Solutions Inc.

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 390 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push390
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 433 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~399.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv2.16.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release433
mean_days_between_releases399.3

Community & Adoption

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

86Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 60,249 stars
25/25Forks — 11,010 forks
15/15Watchers — 990 watchers
Inputs used
forks11,010
stars60,249
watchers990
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.979
How it's scored
22.1/42Issue resolution — 52% of issues closed
10.4/30PR acceptance — 27/78 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs27
open_issues302
closed_issues334
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.525
closed_unmerged_prs51
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
23.2/25Owner reach — 1,682 followers of adam-p
25/25Track record — 66 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,682
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginadam-p
public_repos66
account_age_days5,826
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://markdown-here.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://markdown-here.com
docs_sitehttps://markdown-here.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfiles — package-lock.json
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilespackage-lock.json
manifestsutils/package.json
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: glob 10.4.5 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 302 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories24
affected_packages8
assessed_packages85
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 8
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 85 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
15.5/40Legible commit history — 29 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.29
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.json
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
48.9/55Manageable file sizes — 3/27 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes1,711,398
source_files_sampled27
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

60,249GitHub stars
13contributors
0commits, last 12 months
390days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
302open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/adam-p/markdown-here: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-16T15:00:52Z. Please include `EA06:3F5DC1:C04D921:BAFAEF8:6AAAAF21` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11,010 ⇿
0Stars
11,010Forks
6Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

10,00010,20010,40010,60010,80011,00011,20011,010172022-092024-092026-09
Major 0Minor 3Patch 3

Each point covers 4 days.

Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmarchiver^7.0.1utils/package.json
npmfile*utils/package.json
npmglob^7.1.3utils/package.json
All dependencies 85

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 81 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmarchiver7.0.1direct
npmfile0.2.2direct
npmglob10.4.5direct
npmglob7.2.3direct
npm@isaacs/cliui8.0.2indirect
npm@pkgjs/parseargs0.11.0indirect
npmabort-controller3.0.0indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-regex6.1.0indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.1indirect
npmarchiver-utils5.0.2indirect
npmasync3.2.6indirect
npmb4a1.6.7indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbare-events2.5.0indirect
npmbase64-js1.5.1indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.11indirect
npmbrace-expansion2.0.1indirect
npmbuffer6.0.3indirect
npmbuffer-crc321.0.0indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmcompress-commons6.0.2indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.3indirect
npmcrc-321.2.2indirect
npmcrc32-stream6.0.0indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.3indirect
npmeastasianwidth0.2.0indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmemoji-regex9.2.2indirect
npmevent-target-shim5.0.1indirect
npmevents3.3.0indirect
npmfast-fifo1.3.2indirect
npmforeground-child3.3.0indirect
npmfs.realpath1.0.0indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.11indirect
npmieee7541.2.1indirect
npminflight1.0.6indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmis-stream2.0.1indirect
npmisarray1.0.0indirect
npmisexe2.0.0indirect
npmjackspeak3.4.3indirect
npmlazystream1.0.1indirect
npmlodash4.17.21indirect
npmlru-cache10.4.3indirect
npmminimatch3.1.2indirect
npmminimatch5.1.6indirect
npmminimatch9.0.5indirect
npmminipass7.1.2indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpackage-json-from-dist1.0.1indirect
npmpath-is-absolute1.0.1indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmpath-scurry1.11.1indirect
npmprocess0.11.10indirect
npmprocess-nextick-args2.0.1indirect
npmqueue-tick1.0.1indirect
npmreadable-stream2.3.8indirect
npmreadable-stream4.5.2indirect
npmreaddir-glob1.1.3indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmshebang-command2.0.0indirect
npmshebang-regex3.0.0indirect
npmsignal-exit4.1.0indirect
npmstreamx2.20.1indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstring-width5.1.2indirect
npmstring_decoder1.1.1indirect
npmstring_decoder1.3.0indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.1.0indirect
npmtar-stream3.1.7indirect
npmtext-decoder1.2.0indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmwhich2.0.2indirect
npmwrap-ansi7.0.0indirect
npmwrap-ansi8.1.0indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmzip-stream6.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 85 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
glob10.4.5directhigh111.1.0
brace-expansion1.1.11indirecthigh55.0.9
brace-expansion2.0.1indirecthigh55.0.9
cross-spawn7.0.3indirecthigh17.0.5
lodash4.17.21indirecthigh34.18.0
minimatch3.1.2indirecthigh310.2.3
minimatch5.1.6indirecthigh310.2.3
minimatch9.0.5indirecthigh310.2.3

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.