Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 17:36 UTC

auth0 / node-saml

SAML assertion creation for node

JavaScriptMIT★ 73 stars⑂ 90 forkssince Dec 2012View on GitHub ↗

auth0/node-saml holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (80/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (34/100). It was last updated 24 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Auth0Organization · verified domain
2,124 followers345 public repossince Nov 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmsaml4.0.0399,05947158 days agosamlauthentication

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 24 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume10 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push24
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases11 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 158 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~360.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv4.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release158
mean_days_between_releases360.6
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?

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.1/60Stars73 stars
16.2/25Forks90 forks
11.1/15Watchers100 watchers
Inputs used
forks90
stars73
watchers100
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicestravis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
74.7/80Monthly downloads399,059 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagessaml
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads399,059
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?

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth25 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled25
top_contributor_share0.22
How it's scored
14.4/42Issue resolution34% of issues closed
17.5/30PR acceptance35/60 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 15/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues21
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.344
closed_unmerged_prs25
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.9/25Owner reach2,124 followers of auth0
25/25Track record345 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,124
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginauth0
public_repos345
account_age_days5,039

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 158 days ago
20/20Version history47 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessaml
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish158

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

55Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 15/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: @xmldom/xmldom 0.7.13 (high 7.5)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
33.7/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 157 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories6
affected_packages1
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the npm:saml@4.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.2/40Legible commit history61 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.622
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
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/11 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes38,065
source_files_sampled11
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

73GitHub stars
25contributors
10commits, last 12 months
24days since last push
11releases
3bus factor
21open 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 ★ / 90 ⇿
0Stars
90Forks
11Releases

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.

0204060808032013-012019-102026-07
Major 4Minor 2Patch 4

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 17:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests9 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 15/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@xmldom/xmldom^0.7.4package.json
npmasync^3.2.4package.json
npmmoment^2.29.4package.json
npmvalid-url~1.0.9package.json
npmxml-crypto^2.1.3package.json
npmxml-encryption^4.0.0package.json
npmxml-name-validator~2.0.1package.json
npmxpath0.0.5package.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@xmldom/xmldom^0.7.4direct
npmasync^3.2.4direct
npmmoment^2.29.4direct
npmvalid-url~1.0.9direct
npmxml-crypto^2.1.3direct
npmxml-encryption^4.0.0direct
npmxml-name-validator~2.0.1direct
npmxpath0.0.5direct
npm@commitlint/cli^20.3.1indirect
npm@commitlint/config-conventional^20.3.1indirect
npm@semantic-release/exec^7.0.3indirect
npmchai^4.2.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog^7.2.1indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits^9.3.0indirect
npmhusky^9.1.7indirect
npmmocha^8.2.0indirect
npmsemantic-release^25.0.2indirect
npmshould~1.2.1indirect
npmsinon^9.0.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing npm:saml@4.0.0 pulls in 11 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
@xmldom/xmldom0.7.13directhigh60.9.12

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.