Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 02:45 UTC

elysiajs / elysia-bearer

A plugin for Elysia for retreiving Bearer token

TypeScript · JavaScriptMIT★ 17 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗

elysiajs/elysia-bearer holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (58/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated 37 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

elysiaOrganization
816 followers31 public repossince Dec 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@elysia/bearer1.4.411,6844135 days agoelysiabearerauthentication

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

52Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 37 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 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_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push37
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 135 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~85.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tag1.4.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release135
mean_days_between_releases85.1
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.5/60Stars17 stars
7/25Forks8 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars17
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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
54.2/80Monthly downloads11,684 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@elysia/bearer
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads11,684
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?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.935
How it's scored
12/42Issue resolution29% of issues closed
6/30PR acceptance4/20 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs4
open_issues5
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.286
closed_unmerged_prs16
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.9/25Owner reach816 followers of elysiajs
18.5/25Track record31 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers816
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginelysiajs
public_repos31
account_age_days1,371
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 135 days ago
12/20Version history4 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@elysia/bearer
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish135

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 4 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
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?

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 4 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 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities24 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. 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
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages3
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10.2/40Legible commit history9 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.191
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.js
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 47
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes2,700
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

17GitHub stars
4contributors
12commits, last 12 months
37days since last push
8releases
1bus 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 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
6Releases

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.

02468812023-032024-082025-12
Major 0Minor 3Patch 3

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 02:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 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 4/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities24 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@elysiajs/bearer../../..indirect
npm@types/bun1.3.1indirect
npmelysia1.4.19indirect
npmeslint^9.38.0indirect
npmtsup^8.5.0indirect
npmtypescript^5.9.3indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
elysia1.4.19indirecthigh21.4.27

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.