Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 11:59 UTC

holepunchto / hyper-instrument

Instrument services within the hypercore ecosystem

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 6 stars⑂ 1 forksince Nov 2024View on GitHub ↗

holepunchto/hyper-instrument holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (61/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (19/100). It was last updated 49 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HolepunchOrganization
1,301 followers705 public repossince Mar 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmhyper-instrument3.2.11,3021957 days agoinstrumenthypercorehyperswarmprometheus

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 49 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year23
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push49
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 57 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv3.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases16.4

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars — 6 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars6
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
41.5/80Monthly downloads — 1,302 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshyper-instrument
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,302
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.94
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
26.9/30PR acceptance — 26/29 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
22.4/25Owner reach — 1,301 followers of holepunchto
23.9/25Track record — 705 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,301
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginholepunchto
public_repos705
account_age_days1,995

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
20/20Version history — 19 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshyper-instrument
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

41Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
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?

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages117
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:hyper-instrument@3.2.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 117 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.

19Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.6/40Legible commit history — 24 of 50 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.48
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 50
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes5,279
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
3contributors
23commits, last 12 months
49days since last push
4releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 11:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
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
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmbare-crypto^1.11.2package.json
npmbare-events^2.6.1package.json
npmbare-fs^4.3.1package.json
npmbare-http1^4.0.4package.json
npmbare-https^3.0.0package.json
npmbare-os^3.6.2package.json
npmbare-path^3.0.0package.json
npmbare-process^4.2.1package.json
npmbare-prom-client^15.1.4package.json
npmbare-url^2.2.2package.json
npmbare-utils^1.5.1package.json
npmbare-v8^1.0.1package.json
npmbare-zlib^1.3.1package.json
npmdht-prom-client^2.0.1package.json
npmhypercore-stats^2.0.0package.json
npmhyperdht-stats^1.1.0package.json
npmhyperswarm-stats^1.1.3package.json
npmready-resource^1.1.1package.json
npmwhich-runtime^1.3.0package.json
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbare-crypto^1.11.2direct
npmbare-events^2.6.1direct
npmbare-fs^4.3.1direct
npmbare-http1^4.0.4direct
npmbare-https^3.0.0direct
npmbare-os^3.6.2direct
npmbare-path^3.0.0direct
npmbare-process^4.2.1direct
npmbare-prom-client^15.1.4direct
npmbare-url^2.2.2direct
npmbare-utils^1.5.1direct
npmbare-v8^1.0.1direct
npmbare-zlib^1.3.1direct
npmdht-prom-client^2.0.1direct
npmhypercore-stats^2.0.0direct
npmhyperdht-stats^1.1.0direct
npmhyperswarm-stats^1.1.3direct
npmready-resource^1.1.1direct
npmwhich-runtime^1.3.0direct
npmb4a^1.6.7indirect
npmbrittle^3.8.3indirect
npmcorestore^7.0.0indirect
npmhyperbee^2.21.2indirect
npmhypercore^11.0.0indirect
npmhyperswarm^4.8.4indirect
npmprettier^3.6.2indirect
npmprettier-config-holepunch^2.0.0indirect
npmtest-tmp^1.3.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:hyper-instrument@3.2.1 pulls in 117 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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