Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 03:37 UTC

chyingp / nodejs-learning-guide

Nodejs学习笔记以及经验总结,公众号"程序猿小卡"

RubyCustom license★ 6,866 stars⑂ 1,203 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

chyingp/nodejs-learning-guide holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (73/100) and lowest on Vitality (1/100). It was last updated 1101 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

程序猿小卡Personal account
2,599 followers71 public repossince Sep 2012Alibaba

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?

1Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 1,101 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1,101
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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
60/60Stars6,866 stars
25/25Forks1,203 forks
13.7/15Watchers289 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,203
stars6,866
watchers289
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.995
How it's scored
33/42Issue resolution79% of issues closed
25/30PR acceptance5/6 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues3
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.786
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
24.6/25Owner reach2,599 followers of chyingp
25/25Track record71 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,599
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginchyingp
public_repos71
account_age_days5,089
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

35Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnodejs, crypto, express
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate1.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories10
affected_packages7
assessed_packages48
unassessed_packages32
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3, moderate 3
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 48 resolved dependencies against OSV. 32 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.

28At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.7/40Legible commit history7 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.07
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapexamples/2017.06.03-node8-napi-example/build/Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesexamples/2017.06.03-node8-napi-example/build/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeRuby without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes3/296 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRuby
largest_source_bytes268,039
source_files_sampled296
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

6,866GitHub stars
3contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,101days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npm, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-01: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 6866 stars today.
  • Could not fetch npm package 'nodejs-learning-guide' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 6,873 ★ / 1,203 ⇿
6,873Stars
1,203Forks

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-01. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,2502,5003,7505,0006,2507,5006,8731,2032022018-032022-052026-06

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.4 / 10
1.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 03:36 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 5/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsgithub-pagesGemfile
npmbody-parser^1.17.2package.json
npmconcat-stream^1.6.0package.json
npmcontent-type^1.0.2package.json
npmexpress^4.15.3package.json
npmiconv-lite^0.4.17package.json
npmthrough^2.3.8package.json
All dependencies 80

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbody-parser^1.15.2direct
npmbody-parser^1.17.2direct
npmbody-parser~1.13.2direct
npmconcat-stream^1.6.0direct
npmcontent-type^1.0.2direct
npmexpress^4.14.0direct
npmexpress^4.14.1direct
npmexpress^4.15.3direct
npmexpress~4.13.1direct
npmiconv-lite^0.4.17direct
npmthrough^2.3.8direct
RubyGemsgithub-pagesdirect
npmajv6.10.2indirect
npmasn10.2.4indirect
npmassert-plus1.0.0indirect
npmasynckit0.4.0indirect
npmaws-sign20.7.0indirect
npmaws41.8.0indirect
npmbcrypt-pbkdf1.0.2indirect
npmbindings^1.2.1indirect
npmcaseless0.12.0indirect
npmcombined-stream1.0.8indirect
npmcookie-parser^1.4.3indirect
npmcookie-parser~1.3.5indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.2indirect
npmdashdash1.14.1indirect
npmdebug^2.6.0indirect
npmdebug~2.2.0indirect
npmdelayed-stream1.0.0indirect
npmecc-jsbn0.1.2indirect
npmejs^2.5.1indirect
npmejs^2.5.6indirect
npmejs~2.3.3indirect
npmexcel-export^0.5.1indirect
npmexpress-session^1.14.0indirect
npmextend3.0.2indirect
npmextsprintf1.3.0indirect
npmfast-deep-equal2.0.1indirect
npmfast-json-stable-stringify2.0.0indirect
npmforever-agent0.6.1indirect
npmform-data2.3.3indirect
npmgetpass0.1.7indirect
npmhar-schema2.0.0indirect
npmhar-validator5.1.3indirect
npmhttp-signature1.2.0indirect
npminstall^0.8.1indirect
npmis-typedarray1.0.0indirect
npmisstream0.1.2indirect
npmjade~1.11.0indirect
npmjsbn0.1.1indirect
npmjson-schema0.2.3indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse0.4.1indirect
npmjson-stringify-safe5.0.1indirect
npmjsprim1.4.1indirect
npmlog4js^1.1.0indirect
npmmime-db1.40.0indirect
npmmime-types2.1.24indirect
npmmorgan^1.7.0indirect
npmmorgan~1.6.1indirect
npmmulter^1.2.0indirect
npmnan^2.5.0indirect
npmnpm^3.10.6indirect
npmoauth-sign0.9.0indirect
npmperformance-now2.1.0indirect
npmpsl1.3.0indirect
npmpunycode1.4.1indirect
npmpunycode2.1.1indirect
npmqs6.5.2indirect
npmrequest2.88.0indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.0indirect
npmsafer-buffer2.1.2indirect
npmserve-favicon~2.3.0indirect
npmsession-file-store^0.2.0indirect
npmsshpk1.16.1indirect
npmtough-cookie2.4.3indirect
npmtunnel-agent0.6.0indirect
npmtweetnacl0.14.5indirect
npmuri-js4.2.2indirect
npmuuid3.3.3indirect
npmverror1.10.0indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 48 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 32 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
json-schema0.2.3indirectcritical10.4.0
form-data2.3.3indirecthigh24.0.6
qs6.5.2indirecthigh26.14.1
uuid3.3.3indirecthigh113.0.1
ajv6.10.2indirectmoderate28.18.0
request2.88.0indirectmoderate13.0.0
tough-cookie2.4.3indirectmoderate14.1.3

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.