Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-26 13:53 UTC

gmi-software / react-native-better-maps

Faster, typed maps for React Native, built on Nitro Modules

TypeScript · Kotlin · SwiftMIT★ 148 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗

gmi-software/react-native-better-maps holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (94/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (58/100). It was last updated 12 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

gmi.softwareOrganization
13 followers7 public repossince May 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmreact-native-better-maps1.2.12,235440 days agoreact-nativemapsnitronitro-modulesmapkitgoogle-mapsiosandroid

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 12 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
17.4/18Commit volume — 86 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year86
human_commit_share0.895
days_since_last_push12
active_weeks_last_year12

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 40 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv1.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release40
mean_days_between_releases26.1
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.2/60Stars — 148 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars148
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
44.7/80Monthly downloads — 2,235 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesreact-native-better-maps
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,235
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.727
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
21.9/30PR acceptance — 81/111 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs81
open_issues40
closed_issues40
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs30
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.2/25Owner reach — 13 followers of gmi-software
11.4/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logingmi-software
public_repos7
account_age_days878
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 40 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesreact-native-better-maps
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish40

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

94Exceptional · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://gmi.software/open-source
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 14 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapple-maps, google-maps, nitro-modules, react-native, android, clustering, expo, geojson, ios, jsi, mapkit, maps, new-architecture, typescript
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://gmi.software/open-source
docs_sitehttps://gmi.software/open-source
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

73Good · 16% of overall
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 — 30 out of 30 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — 68 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages25
affected_by_severitynone
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 4 resolved dependencies against OSV. 25 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://gmi.software/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 77 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://gmi.software/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.987
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — package/android/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checking — config/tsconfig.json, example/tsconfig.json, package/tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
2.3/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 86 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 86 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsconfig/tsconfig.json, example/tsconfig.json, package/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.012
toolchain_manifestspackage/android/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0.105
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/278 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes35,141
source_files_sampled278
oversized_source_files0
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 — example, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
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

148GitHub stars
8contributors
86commits, last 12 months
12days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
40open 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 ★ / 10 ⇿
0Stars
10Forks
3Releases

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.

02468101022026-072026-082026-10
Major 0Minor 2Patch 1
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-26 13:52 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-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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
0Vulnerabilities68 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/core^7.27.4indirect
npm@commitlint/cli^21.2.3indirect
npm@commitlint/config-conventional^21.2.3indirect
npm@eslint/js^10.0.1indirect
npm@expo/config-plugins~57.0.0indirect
npm@release-it/conventional-changelog^12.0.2indirect
npm@types/bun^1.4.2indirect
npm@types/react^19.2.15indirect
npmbabel-preset-expo~57.0.0indirect
npmeslint^10.11.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react^7.37.5indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-hooks^7.1.1indirect
npmexpo^57.0.25indirect
npmexpo-status-bar~57.0.1indirect
npmglobals^17.12.0indirect
npmhusky^9.1.7indirect
npmnitrogen^0.35.9indirect
npmprettier^3.9.9indirect
npmreact19.2.3indirect
npmreact-native0.86.0indirect
npmreact-native-builder-bob^0.43.1indirect
npmreact-native-nitro-modules^0.35.10indirect
npmreact-native-reanimated4.7.0indirect
npmreact-native-safe-area-context~5.10.0indirect
npmreact-native-worklets0.13.0indirect
npmrelease-it^21.1.0indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmtypescript~6.0.3indirect
npmtypescript-eslint^8.70.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 25 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.