Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 00:25 UTC

eggjs / security

Security plugin for egg, force performance too.

TypeScript · JavaScriptMIT★ 238 stars⑂ 41 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗

eggjs/security holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (42/100). It was last updated 57 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

eggOrganization
229 followers186 public repossince Nov 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@eggjs/security4.0.22,2695057 days agoeggeggpluginegg-pluginsecurity

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

42Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 57 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year2
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push57
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 585 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~43.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv4.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release585
mean_days_between_releases43.9
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.5/60Stars — 238 stars
13.4/25Forks — 41 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks41
stars238
watchers12
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.7/80Monthly downloads — 2,269 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@eggjs/security
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,269
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?

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 43 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.312
How it's scored
22.9/42Issue resolution — 55% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 83/94 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs83
open_issues5
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.545
closed_unmerged_prs11
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17/25Owner reach — 229 followers of eggjs
25/25Track record — 186 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers229
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logineggjs
public_repos186
account_age_days3,954

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
20/20Version history — 50 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@eggjs/security
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 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
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsegg-plugin, security, egg
has_wikino
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 43 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages106
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:@eggjs/security@4.0.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 106 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history — 71 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.71
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/212 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes23,751
source_files_sampled212
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

238GitHub stars
21contributors
2commits, last 12 months
57days since last push
12releases
2bus factor
5open 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 ★ / 41 ⇿
0Stars
41Forks
5Releases

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.

010203040504122017-062020-122024-06
Major 1Minor 3Patch 1

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 00:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
0CI-Tests1 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 43 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@eggjs/core^6.2.13package.json
npm@eggjs/ip^2.1.0package.json
npmcsrf^3.0.6package.json
npmegg-path-matching^2.1.0package.json
npmescape-html^1.0.3package.json
npmextend^3.0.1package.json
npmkoa-compose^4.1.0package.json
npmmatcher^4.0.0package.json
npmnanoid^3.3.8package.json
npmtype-is^1.6.18package.json
npmxss^1.0.3package.json
npmzod^3.24.1package.json
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@eggjs/core^6.2.13direct
npm@eggjs/ip^2.1.0direct
npmcsrf^3.0.6direct
npmegg-path-matching^2.1.0direct
npmescape-html^1.0.3direct
npmextend^3.0.1direct
npmkoa-compose^4.1.0direct
npmmatcher^4.0.0direct
npmnanoid^3.3.8direct
npmtype-is^1.6.18direct
npmxss^1.0.3direct
npmzod^3.24.1direct
npm@arethetypeswrong/cli^0.17.1indirect
npm@eggjs/bin7indirect
npm@eggjs/mock^6.0.5indirect
npm@eggjs/supertest^8.2.0indirect
npm@eggjs/tsconfig1indirect
npm@types/escape-html^1.0.4indirect
npm@types/extend^3.0.4indirect
npm@types/koa-compose^3.2.8indirect
npm@types/mocha10indirect
npm@types/node22indirect
npm@types/type-is^1.6.7indirect
npmbeautify-benchmark^0.2.4indirect
npmbenchmark^2.1.4indirect
npmegg^4.0.4indirect
npmegg-view-nunjucks^2.3.0indirect
npmeslint8indirect
npmeslint-config-egg14indirect
npmrimraf6indirect
npmsnap-shot-it^7.9.10indirect
npmspy^1.0.0indirect
npmsupertest^6.3.3indirect
npmtshy3indirect
npmtshy-after1indirect
npmtypescript5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@eggjs/security@4.0.2 pulls in 106 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.