Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 21:01 UTC

iLib-js / iLib

A library of i18n routines written in JavaScript.

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 35 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Nov 2015View on GitHub ↗

iLib-js/iLib holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Security (39/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

iLib-jsOrganization
3 followers105 public repossince Nov 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmilib15.0.0101,9925754 days agointernationalizationi18nlocalizationl10nglobalizationg11ndatetimeformatlocaletranslation

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 20 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 156 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_year156
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 40 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 54 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~137.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv15.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases137.2

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.8/60Stars — 35 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars35
watchers12
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)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
66.8/80Monthly downloads — 101,992 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesilib
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads101,992
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.518
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance — 473/498 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs473
open_issues2
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs25
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
4.3/25Owner reach — 3 followers of iLib-js
25/25Track record — 105 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers3
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginiLib-js
public_repos105
account_age_days3,955

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 54 days ago
20/20Version history — 57 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesilib
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsinternationalization, i18n, ilib, javascript, javascript-library, globalization
has_wikiyes
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?

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 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
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/development-process.mdc, .cursor/rules/js-lib-conventions.mdc, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.5/40Legible commit history — 31 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.31
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/development-process.mdc, .cursor/rules/js-lib-conventions.mdc, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,984
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
52.9/55Manageable file sizes — 47/1,220 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes1,879,908
source_files_sampled1,220
oversized_source_files47

Key facts

35GitHub stars
5contributors
156commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
40releases
1bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
36Releases

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.

123456612017-052021-072025-10
Major 2Minor 24Patch 10

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 21:01 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during GetBranch(main) error during branchesHandler.query: 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-Tests4 out of 4 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
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update 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
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
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.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbabel-loader^8.4.1indirect
npmbetter-docs^2.7.3indirect
npmcldr-cal-ethiopic-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-cal-persian-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-core^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-dates-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-localenames-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-misc-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-numbers-full^48.2.0indirect
npmcldr-units-full^48.2.0indirect
npmejs^3.1.10indirect
npmgrunt^1.6.1indirect
npmgrunt-cli^1.5.0indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-clean^2.0.1indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-compress^2.0.0indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-copy^1.0.0indirect
npmgrunt-contrib-uglify^5.2.2indirect
npmgrunt-eslint^24.3.0indirect
npmgrunt-http-server^2.1.0indirect
npmgrunt-jsdoc^2.4.1indirect
npmgrunt-md5sum^2.0.1indirect
npmgrunt-mkdir^1.1.0indirect
npmgrunt-move^2.0.0indirect
npmgrunt-shell^4.0.0indirect
npmgrunt-text-replace^0.4.0indirect
npmhttp-server^14.1.1indirect
npmilib-assemble^1.4.0indirect
npmilib-common^1.1.7indirect
npmilib-scanner^1.4.0indirect
npmilib-webpack-loader^1.3.1indirect
npmilib-webpack-plugin^1.3.0indirect
npmiso-15924^3.2.0indirect
npmjsdoc^4.0.5indirect
npmjson-stable-stringify^1.3.0indirect
npmnode-expat^2.4.1indirect
npmnodeunit^0.11.3indirect
npmshould^13.2.3indirect
npmtap^18.8.0indirect
npmtrireme^0.9.3indirect
npmucd-full^17.0.0indirect
npmuglify-js^3.19.3indirect
npmuglifyjs-webpack-plugin^2.2.0indirect
npmwebpack^4.47.0indirect
npmwebpack-cli^3.3.12indirect
npmxml2json^0.12.0indirect
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 statistics — npm.