Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 15:54 UTC

chengchuu / mazey

A Functional Library for Daily Frontend Work

TypeScript · JavaScriptMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 3 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

chengchuu/mazey holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ChengPersonal account
33 followers43 public repossince Jan 2017

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

Package ecosystems

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 7 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume — 86 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year86
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~118.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv4.13.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release53
mean_days_between_releases118.6
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars — 5 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars5
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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
47.9/80Monthly downloads — 3,943 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmazey
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,943
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
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 210/215 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs210
open_issues9
closed_issues81
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.9
closed_unmerged_prs5
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
11/25Owner reach — 33 followers of chengchuu
24/25Track record — 43 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers33
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginchengchuu
public_repos43
account_age_days3,527
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 13 days ago
20/20Version history — 218 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmazey
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://chengchuu.github.io/mazey/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnpm, typescript, lib, javascript, utilities, utility
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://chengchuu.github.io/mazey/
docs_sitehttps://chengchuu.github.io/mazey/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 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 0/11 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
6/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5
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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages48
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 48 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 91 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.91
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,181
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/32 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes39,049
source_files_sampled32
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

5GitHub stars
1contributors
86commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
9open 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 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
33Releases

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.

12233312021-122024-042026-08
Major 2Minor 6Patch 25

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 15:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 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 0/11 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
8Maintained3 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 49

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/core^7.23.2indirect
npm@babel/plugin-transform-class-properties^7.22.5indirect
npm@babel/plugin-transform-object-rest-spread^7.22.15indirect
npm@babel/plugin-transform-runtime^7.23.2indirect
npm@babel/preset-env^7.23.2indirect
npm@babel/preset-typescript^7.23.2indirect
npm@babel/runtime^7.23.2indirect
npm@babel/runtime-corejs3^7.23.2indirect
npm@commitlint/cli^17.8.1indirect
npm@commitlint/config-conventional^17.8.1indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-babel^6.0.3indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-commonjs^25.0.7indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-node-resolve^16.0.3indirect
npm@rollup/plugin-terser^0.4.4indirect
npm@types/jquery^3.5.29indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin^6.12.0indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser^6.12.0indirect
npmclean-webpack-plugin^4.0.0indirect
npmcore-js^3.33.2indirect
npmcross-env^7.0.3indirect
npmdate-fns^2.30.0indirect
npmeslint^8.54.0indirect
npmeslint-config-standard^17.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import^2.29.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-node^11.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise^6.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-standard^4.1.0indirect
npmexeca^5.1.1indirect
npmhtml-webpack-plugin^5.5.3indirect
npmhusky^8.0.3indirect
npmjest^29.7.0indirect
npmjest-environment-jsdom^29.7.0indirect
npmjquery^3.7.1indirect
npmlint-staged^14.0.1indirect
npmmarkdown-toc^1.2.0indirect
npmprettier^2.8.8indirect
npmprettier-eslint-cli^8.0.1indirect
npmrollup^3.29.4indirect
npmrollup-plugin-cleaner^1.0.0indirect
npmrollup-plugin-copy^3.4.0indirect
npmrollup-plugin-dts^6.1.0indirect
npmrollup-plugin-typescript2^0.34.1indirect
npmts-loader^9.4.4indirect
npmtslib^2.6.2indirect
npmtypedoc^0.25.4indirect
npmtypescript5.3.2indirect
npmwebpack^5.89.0indirect
npmwebpack-cli^5.1.4indirect
npmwebpack-dev-server^4.15.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 48 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.