Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 18:23 UTC

expressjs / body-parser

Node.js body parsing middleware

JavaScriptMIT★ 5,499 stars⑂ 760 forkssince Jan 2014View on GitHub ↗

expressjs/body-parser holds a health index of 93 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

93
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

93
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 79 is calibrated to 93 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

expressjsOrganization
2,590 followers50 public repossince Oct 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npmbody-parser2.3.0542,451,4708450 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence25/52 weeks with commits
16.9/18Commit volume75 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year75
human_commit_share0.58
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year25
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases83 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 26 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~74.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count83
latest_release_tag1.20.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release26
mean_days_between_releases74.1
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?

95Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars5,499 stars
24/25Forks760 forks
10.7/15Watchers85 watchers
Inputs used
forks760
stars5,499
watchers85
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads542,451,470 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesbody-parser
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads542,451,470
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?

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth39 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled39
top_contributor_share0.825
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
17.5/30PR acceptance159/273 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 12/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs159
open_issues21
closed_issues318
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio0.938
closed_unmerged_prs114
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
24.5/25Owner reach2,590 followers of expressjs
24.4/25Track record50 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,590
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginexpressjs
public_repos50
account_age_days4,681
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 50 days ago
20/20Version history84 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesbody-parser
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish50

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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
10/10Topics8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjavascript, middleware, expressjs, nodejs, json, urlencoded, body, parser
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?

84Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 12/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
3/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
4.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate8
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 advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages42
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:body-parser@2.3.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 42 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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history55 of 58 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.948
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance42 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.42
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes33,891
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5,499GitHub stars
39contributors
75commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
83releases
1bus factor
21open 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 ★ / 760 ⇿
0Stars
760Forks
83Releases

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.

0125250375500625750745192014-042020-062026-07
Major 1Minor 23Patch 57

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.0 / 10
8.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 18:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 12/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 32 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmbytes^3.1.2package.json
npmcontent-type^2.0.0package.json
npmdebug^4.4.3package.json
npmhttp-errors^2.0.1package.json
npmiconv-lite^0.7.2package.json
npmon-finished^2.4.1package.json
npmqs^6.15.2package.json
npmraw-body^3.0.2package.json
npmtype-is^2.1.0package.json
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbytes^3.1.2direct
npmcontent-type^2.0.0direct
npmdebug^4.4.3direct
npmhttp-errors^2.0.1direct
npmiconv-lite^0.7.2direct
npmon-finished^2.4.1direct
npmqs^6.15.2direct
npmraw-body^3.0.2direct
npmtype-is^2.1.0direct
npmeslint^8.57.1indirect
npmeslint-config-standard^14.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import^2.32.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-markdown^3.0.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-node^11.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise^6.6.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-standard^4.1.0indirect
npmmocha^11.7.6indirect
npmnyc^17.1.0indirect
npmsupertest^7.2.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:body-parser@2.3.0 pulls in 42 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsnpm.