Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 04:56 UTC

foo-ogawa / litedbmodel

A lightweight, SQL-friendly TypeScript ORM for PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQLite with transparent N+1 prevention and type-safe queries

TypeScriptMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#database#javascript#lightweight#mysql#nodejs#npm-package#orm#postgresql#sql#sqlite#type-safe#typescript

foo-ogawa/litedbmodel holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

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

Ownership

foo-ogawaPersonal account
1 follower7 public repossince Jun 2014

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
Gogithub.com/foo-ogawa/litedbmodelv2.1.0+incompatible-472 days ago—
npmlitedbmodel1.2.101,6964727 days agoormpostgresqlmysqlsqlitedatabasetypescriptdata-access-layeractive-recordtype-safe
PyPIlitedbmodel-runtime2.1.050342 days agoormsqlirruntimeconformancelitedbmodel

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 320 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year320
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 46 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv2.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases4.9
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
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_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

54Moderate
How it's scored
43.1/80Monthly downloads — 1,696 downloads/month across go, npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/foo-ogawa/litedbmodel, litedbmodel
dependents—
ecosystemsgo, npm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,696
unverified_packages_excludedlitedbmodel-runtime
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good
How it's scored
35.9/42Issue resolution — 85% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance — 24/26 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues14
closed_issues82
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.854
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.

Ownership & stewardship

38Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of foo-ogawa
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfoo-ogawa
public_repos7
account_age_days4,419
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on go, npm, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 47 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/foo-ogawa/litedbmodel, litedbmodel, litedbmodel-runtime
ecosystemsgo, npm, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdatabase, javascript, lightweight, mysql, nodejs, npm-package, orm, postgresql, sql, sqlite, type-safe, typescript
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — benchmark/tsconfig.json, conformance/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsbenchmark/tsconfig.json, conformance/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes — 7/227 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes100,923
source_files_sampled227
oversized_source_files7

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

0GitHub stars
1contributors
320commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
14open issues
crates.io, Go, npm, Packagist, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch npm package 'orm-benchmark' from its registry
  • Could not fetch packagist package 'litedbmodel/runtime' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 04:56 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
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmlitedbmodelfile:..benchmark/package.json
npm@prisma/client^6.0.0benchmark/package.json
npmkysely^0.27.0benchmark/package.json
npmdrizzle-orm^0.36.0benchmark/package.json
npmtypeorm^0.3.20benchmark/package.json
npmpg^8.11.0benchmark/package.json
npmreflect-metadata^0.2.0benchmark/package.json
Gogithub.com/foo-ogawa/behavior-contracts/gov0.8.0go/go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-sql-driver/mysqlv1.10.0go/go.mod
Gogithub.com/jackc/pgx/v5v5.10.0go/go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.34.0go/go.mod
npmbehavior-contracts^0.8.0package.json
npmreflect-metadata^0.2.2package.json
PyPIbehavior-contracts==0.8.0python/pyproject.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with foo-ogawa/litedbmodel. Read them side by side →

98typeorm/typeormTypeScript & JavaScript ORM for Node.js — supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, SQLite, SQL Server, Oracle, and more.Exceptional100supabase/supabase-jsAn isomorphic Javascript client for Supabase. Query your Supabase database, subscribe to realtime events, upload and download files, browse typescript examples, invoke postgres functions via rpc, invoke supabase edge functions, query pgvector.Exceptional98valkey-io/valkey-glideAn open source Valkey client library that supports Valkey, and Redis open source 6.2, 7.0 and 7.2. Valkey GLIDE is designed for reliability, optimized performance, and high-availability, for Valkey and Redis OSS based applications. GLIDE is a multi language client library, written in Rust with programming language bindings, such as Java and PythonExceptional98strapi/strapi🚀 Strapi is the leading open-source headless CMS. It’s 100% JavaScript/TypeScript, fully customizable, and developer-first.Exceptional97middyjs/middy🛵 The stylish Node.js middleware engine for AWS Lambda 🛵Exceptional98apache/shardingsphereEmpowering Data Intelligence with Distributed SQL for Sharding, Scalability, and Security Across All Databases.Exceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go, npm, PyPI.