Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-31 10:39 UTC

hapijs / hoek

Node utilities shared among the extended hapi universe

TypeScriptCustom license★ 483 stars⑂ 179 forkssince Sep 2012View on GitHub ↗

hapijs/hoek holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on Vitality (40/100). It was last updated 30 days ago. 3 contributors account 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

hapi.jsOrganization · verified domain
194 followers77 public repossince Mar 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@hapi/hoek11.0.7122,969,27146654 days agoutilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

40Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 30 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
5.4/18Commit volume3 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year3
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push30
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases3 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 999 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~536.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv11.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release999
mean_days_between_releases536.4
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?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.5/60Stars483 stars
18.8/25Forks179 forks
9.3/15Watchers48 watchers
Inputs used
forks179
stars483
watchers48
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads122,969,271 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@hapi/hoek
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads122,969,271
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?

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth48 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled48
top_contributor_share0.275
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance166/194 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 11/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs166
open_issues1
closed_issues209
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.995
closed_unmerged_prs28
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
16.5/25Owner reach194 followers of hapijs
25/25Track record77 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers194
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhapijs
public_repos77
account_age_days4,927
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 654 days ago
20/20Version history46 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@hapi/hoek
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish654

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

45Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
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?

46Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 11/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.1/40Legible commit history47 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.47
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes1/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes85,104
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

483GitHub stars
48contributors
3commits, last 12 months
30days since last push
3releases
3bus factor
1open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 179 ⇿
0Stars
179Forks
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.

0408012016020017952012-092019-082026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 3

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-31 10:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 11/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 8

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@hapi/oxc-plugin^1.0.2indirect
npm@types/node^22.20.1indirect
npm@vitest/coverage-v8^4.1.10indirect
npmoxfmt^0.61.0indirect
npmoxlint^1.76.0indirect
npmtsdown^0.22.14indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmvitest^4.1.10indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

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 statisticsnpm.