Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 20:29 UTC

expressjs / compression

Node.js compression middleware

JavaScriptMIT★ 2,804 stars⑂ 251 forkssince Jan 2014View on GitHub ↗

expressjs/compression holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (91/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 48 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 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 publishTags
npmcompression1.8.1153,319,94839383 days agocompressiongzipdeflatemiddlewareexpressbrotlihttpstream

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

37Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 48 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push48
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases31 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 383 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~385.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv1.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release383
mean_days_between_releases385.2
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?

91Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.9/60Stars2,804 stars
20/25Forks251 forks
9.5/15Watchers52 watchers
Inputs used
forks251
stars2,804
watchers52
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_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads153,319,948 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescompression
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads153,319,948
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?

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth24 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled24
top_contributor_share0.876
How it's scored
38.9/42Issue resolution92% of issues closed
16.4/30PR acceptance58/106 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs58
open_issues11
closed_issues135
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.925
closed_unmerged_prs48
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
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.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 383 days ago
20/20Version history39 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescompression
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish383

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 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
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
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
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscompression, deflate, expressjs, gzip, javascript, middleware, nodejs
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?

77Good · 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
1.5/2.5CI-Tests18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 20 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
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
4/5SASTSAST 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_aggregate7.1
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_packages9
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:compression@1.8.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes31,399
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,804GitHub stars
24contributors
12commits, last 12 months
48days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
11open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GraphQL snapshot failed, fell back to REST: GitHub GraphQL error: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-08-04T20:28:49Z. Please include `BC4C:24F01F:1A7E45:193995:6A724B80` when reporting this issue.
  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 251 ⇿
0Stars
251Forks
31Releases

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.

0408012016020019862014-012020-042026-07
Major 0Minor 8Patch 23

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 20:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests18 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
8SASTSAST 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 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmbytes3.1.2package.json
npmcompressible~2.0.18package.json
npmdebug2.6.9package.json
npmnegotiator~0.6.4package.json
npmon-headers~1.1.0package.json
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1package.json
npmvary~1.1.2package.json
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbytes3.1.2direct
npmcompressible~2.0.18direct
npmdebug2.6.9direct
npmnegotiator~0.6.4direct
npmon-headers~1.1.0direct
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1direct
npmvary~1.1.2direct
npmafter0.8.2indirect
npmeslint7.32.0indirect
npmeslint-config-standard14.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import2.32.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-markdown2.2.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-node11.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise5.2.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-standard4.1.0indirect
npmmocha9.2.2indirect
npmnyc15.1.0indirect
npmsupertest6.3.4indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:compression@1.8.1 pulls in 9 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.