Public record
Software health reportschema 0.29.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-02 17:41 UTC

hueychen27 / chat_app

This is a chat app.

JavaScript · CSSNo license detected★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

hueychen27/chat_app holds a health index of 5 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (48/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

5
overall / 100
Critical

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.

5
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 31 is calibrated to 25 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

hueychen27Personal account
8 followers63 public repossince Jan 2021

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
npmserverpoints to another repo — not scored1.0.4233,062102387 days agoservernode.jshttpwebsocketsocketasync

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

38Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

62Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 6 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share0.548
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

48Weak · 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
27.1/30PR acceptance — 19/21 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs19
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs2
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

51Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of hueychen27
24/25Track record — 63 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhueychen27
public_repos63
account_age_days2,009
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

21At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

27At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

9Critical
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — no data
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier9
security_posture_before_jurisdiction43
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

97Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
23/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: cookie 0.4.0 (low)
39/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 666 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages198
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitylow 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the npm:server@1.0.42 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 198 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

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 19 of 23 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.826
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 42
8/8Automated maintenance — 19 of the last 42 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.452
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes49,732
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
22commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • npm package 'server' points at a different repository (https://github.com/franciscop/server); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-02 17:41 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 16 changesets
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmexpress^4.18.2server/package.json
npmsocket.io^4.7.2server/package.json
All dependencies 120

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 118 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmexpress4.22.2direct
npmsocket.io4.8.0direct
npm@socket.io/component-emitter3.1.0indirect
npm@types/cors2.8.17indirect
npm@types/node22.7.5indirect
npm@types/ws8.18.1indirect
npmabbrev1.1.1indirect
npmaccepts1.3.8indirect
npmanymatch3.1.3indirect
npmarray-flatten1.1.1indirect
npmbalanced-match4.0.4indirect
npmbase64id2.0.0indirect
npmbinary-extensions2.2.0indirect
npmbody-parser1.20.6indirect
npmbrace-expansion5.0.8indirect
npmbraces3.0.3indirect
npmbytes3.1.2indirect
npmcall-bind-apply-helpers1.0.2indirect
npmcall-bound1.0.4indirect
npmchokidar3.5.3indirect
npmcontent-disposition0.5.4indirect
npmcontent-type1.0.5indirect
npmcookie0.7.1indirect
npmcookie0.7.2indirect
npmcookie-signature1.0.6indirect
npmcors2.8.5indirect
npmdebug2.6.9indirect
npmdebug4.3.4indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdepd2.0.0indirect
npmdestroy1.2.0indirect
npmdunder-proto1.0.1indirect
npmee-first1.1.1indirect
npmencodeurl1.0.2indirect
npmencodeurl2.0.0indirect
npmengine.io6.6.9indirect
npmengine.io-parser5.2.3indirect
npmes-define-property1.0.1indirect
npmes-errors1.3.0indirect
npmes-object-atoms1.1.2indirect
npmescape-html1.0.3indirect
npmetag1.8.1indirect
npmfill-range7.1.1indirect
npmfinalhandler1.3.1indirect
npmforwarded0.2.0indirect
npmfresh0.5.2indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmget-intrinsic1.3.0indirect
npmget-proto1.0.1indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmgopd1.2.0indirect
npmhas-flag3.0.0indirect
npmhas-symbols1.1.0indirect
npmhasown2.0.3indirect
npmhttp-errors2.0.0indirect
npmhttp-errors2.0.1indirect
npmiconv-lite0.4.24indirect
npmignore-by-default1.0.1indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmipaddr.js1.9.1indirect
npmis-binary-path2.1.0indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmlru-cache6.0.0indirect
npmmath-intrinsics1.1.0indirect
npmmedia-typer0.3.0indirect
npmmerge-descriptors1.0.3indirect
npmmethods1.1.2indirect
npmmime1.6.0indirect
npmmime-db1.52.0indirect
npmmime-types2.1.35indirect
npmminimatch10.2.5indirect
npmms2.0.0indirect
npmms2.1.2indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnegotiator0.6.3indirect
npmnodemon3.1.14indirect
npmnopt1.0.10indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmobject-assign4.1.1indirect
npmobject-inspect1.13.4indirect
npmon-finished2.4.1indirect
npmparseurl1.3.3indirect
npmpath-to-regexp0.1.13indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.2indirect
npmproxy-addr2.0.7indirect
npmpstree.remy1.1.8indirect
npmqs6.15.2indirect
npmrange-parser1.2.1indirect
npmraw-body2.5.3indirect
npmreaddirp3.6.0indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmsafer-buffer2.1.2indirect
npmsemver7.5.4indirect
npmsend0.19.0indirect
npmserve-static1.16.2indirect
npmsetprototypeof1.2.0indirect
npmside-channel1.1.0indirect
npmside-channel-list1.0.1indirect
npmside-channel-map1.0.1indirect
npmside-channel-weakmap1.0.2indirect
npmsimple-update-notifier2.0.0indirect
npmsocket.io-adapter2.5.8indirect
npmsocket.io-parser4.2.6indirect
npmstatuses2.0.1indirect
npmstatuses2.0.2indirect
npmsupports-color5.5.0indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmtoidentifier1.0.1indirect
npmtouch3.1.0indirect
npmtype-is1.6.18indirect
npmundefsafe2.0.5indirect
npmundici-types6.19.8indirect
npmunpipe1.0.0indirect
npmutils-merge1.0.1indirect
npmvary1.1.2indirect
npmws8.21.0indirect
npmyallist4.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing npm:server@1.0.42 pulls in 198 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cookie0.4.0indirectlow10.7.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with hueychen27/chat_app. Read them side by side →

100DataDog/dd-trace-jsDatadog APM client for Node.jsExceptional100Azure/azure-sdk-for-jsThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for JavaScript (NodeJS & Browser). For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://docs.microsoft.com/javascript/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-js. Exceptional100hashicorp/consulConsul is a distributed, highly available, and data center aware solution to connect and configure applications across dynamic, distributed infrastructure.Exceptional100mui/material-uiMaterial UI: Comprehensive React component library that implements Google's Material Design. Free forever.Exceptional100carbon-design-system/carbonA design system built by IBMExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional

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 v0.29.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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