Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 17:28 UTC

es-shims / iterator-helpers

An ESnext spec-compliant iterator helpers shim/polyfill/replacement that works as far down as ES3.

JavaScriptMIT★ 22 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗

es-shims/iterator-helpers holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (74/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (32/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ECMAScript ShimsOrganization
180 followers168 public repossince Dec 2013

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 17 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume — 85 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year85
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 29 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 101 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~89.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release101
mean_days_between_releases89.6
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars — 22 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars22
watchers3
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
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 232,652,046 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageses-iterator-helpers
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads232,652,046
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.99
How it's scored
35/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 2/2 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs2
open_issues1
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.833
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
16.2/25Owner reach — 180 followers of es-shims
25/25Track record — 168 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers180
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logines-shims
public_repos168
account_age_days4,676

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 101 days ago
20/20Version history — 29 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageses-iterator-helpers
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish101

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://tc39.es/proposal-iterator-helpers/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsasynciterator, drop, ecmascript, es-shims, every, filter, find, flatmap, foreach, from, iterator, javascript, map, polyfill, reduce, some, take, toarray, toasync
has_wikino
homepagehttps://tc39.es/proposal-iterator-helpers/
docs_sitehttps://tc39.es/proposal-iterator-helpers/
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 — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 31 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
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 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 — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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_packages93
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:es-iterator-helpers@1.4.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 93 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.

32At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
11.2/40Legible commit history — 21 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.21
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 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_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/149 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes18,771
source_files_sampled149
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

22GitHub stars
3contributors
85commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
29releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212024-052024-062024-08
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 · 2026-10-20 17:27 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmcall-bind^1.0.9package.json
npmcall-bound^1.0.4package.json
npmdefine-properties^1.2.1package.json
npmes-abstract^1.24.2package.json
npmes-errors^1.3.0package.json
npmes-set-tostringtag^2.1.0package.json
npmfunction-bind^1.1.2package.json
npmget-intrinsic^1.3.0package.json
npmglobalthis^1.0.4package.json
npmgopd^1.2.0package.json
npmhas-property-descriptors^1.0.2package.json
npmhas-proto^1.2.0package.json
npmhas-symbols^1.1.0package.json
npminternal-slot^1.1.0package.json
npmiterator.prototype^1.1.5package.json
npmmath-intrinsics^1.1.0package.json
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmcall-bind^1.0.9direct
npmcall-bound^1.0.4direct
npmdefine-properties^1.2.1direct
npmes-abstract^1.24.2direct
npmes-errors^1.3.0direct
npmes-set-tostringtag^2.1.0direct
npmfunction-bind^1.1.2direct
npmget-intrinsic^1.3.0direct
npmglobalthis^1.0.4direct
npmgopd^1.2.0direct
npmhas-property-descriptors^1.0.2direct
npmhas-proto^1.2.0direct
npmhas-symbols^1.1.0direct
npminternal-slot^1.1.0direct
npmiterator.prototype^1.1.5direct
npmmath-intrinsics^1.1.0direct
npm@es-shims/api^4.0.0indirect
npm@ljharb/eslint-config^22.2.5indirect
npmauto-changelog^2.7.0indirect
npmbrowserify^17.0.1indirect
npmes-value-fixtures^1.7.1indirect
npmeslint^9.39.5indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import^2.32.0indirect
npmevalmd^0.0.22indirect
npmfor-each^0.3.5indirect
npmfunctions-have-names^1.2.3indirect
npmhas-strict-mode^1.1.0indirect
npmhas-tostringtag^1.0.2indirect
npmin-publish^2.0.1indirect
npmiterate-iterator^1.0.2indirect
npmjiti^0.0.0indirect
npmmake-generator-function^2.1.0indirect
npmmock-property^1.1.2indirect
npmnpmignore^0.3.5indirect
npmnyc^10.3.2indirect
npmobject-inspect^1.13.4indirect
npmrequire-stash^1.0.0indirect
npmsafe-publish-latest^2.0.0indirect
npmtape^5.10.2indirect
npmtest262-harness^10.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:es-iterator-helpers@1.4.0 pulls in 93 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.