# adobe/css-tools — health index 80/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository adobe/css-tools by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/adobe/css-tools
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/adobe/css-tools
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/adobe/css-tools/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/adobe/css-tools.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-29
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 63/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 51/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 60/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 74/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 59/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | CSS parser / stringifier for Node.js |
| Classification | library |
| Primary language | CSS |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 87 |
| Forks | 24 |
| Created | 2022-06-09 |
| Last push | 2026-08-28 |
| Latest release | v3.0.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 310 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Fork | yes |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @adobe/css-tools | 4.5.0 | 219,916,639 |

## Vitality — 63/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 83/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 23.4 / 36 | 45/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 30 of the last 100 commits human-authored, none in 99 days |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.5 / 18 | 310 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 30 of the last 100 commits human-authored, none in 99 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 32/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 24 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 2249 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~264.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 100 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 51/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 43/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 31.4 / 60 | 87 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.3 / 25 | 24 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 219,916,639 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 90/100 (Excellent)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 25% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 27 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 27 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 88/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 40.5 / 42 | 96% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 23.2 / 30 | 493/638 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | Found no human activity in the last 15 changesets |

### Ownership & stewardship — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,252 followers of adobe |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 1116 public repos, account ~15 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 99 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 22 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 60/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 4 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | biome.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 74/100 (Good)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 67/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Code-Review, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | Found no human activity in the last 15 changesets |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 27 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | 7 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 425 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 59/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 30/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 30.2 / 40 | 17 of 30 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | biome.json |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 35 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | CSS with type-check config (tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/17 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Community profile unavailable

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt