Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 03:37 UTC

jgraph / drawio

draw.io is a JavaScript, client-side editor for general diagramming.

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 7,767 stars⑂ 1,194 forkssince Sep 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

jgraph/drawio holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (33/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

draw.ioOrganization
5,054 followers30 public repossince May 2012

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence34/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume60 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year60
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year34
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~4.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv31.3.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases4.1

Community & Adoption

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

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars7,767 stars
25/25Forks1,194 forks
8.9/15Watchers41 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,194
stars7,767
watchers41
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.991
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
5.8/30PR acceptance38/198 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs38
open_issues101
closed_issues4,243
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.977
closed_unmerged_prs160
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
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach5,054 followers of jgraph
22.9/25Track record30 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,054
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginjgraph
public_repos30
account_age_days5,209

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.drawio.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdiagram, javascript, whiteboard
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.drawio.com
docs_sitehttps://www.drawio.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories2 affected: crypto-js 3.1.2 (critical 9.1), image-size 2.0.2 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
32.6/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,037 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages56
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 1
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 56 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionssrc/main/webapp/js/diagramly/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/diagramly/sidebar/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/diagramly/vsdx/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/grapheditor/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/libavoid-js/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.7/40Legible commit history5 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.051
agent_instruction_filessrc/main/webapp/js/diagramly/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/diagramly/sidebar/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/diagramly/vsdx/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/grapheditor/CLAUDE.md, src/main/webapp/js/libavoid-js/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes30,788
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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_share0.01
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
43.2/55Manageable file sizes101/472 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes22,346,967
source_files_sampled472
oversized_source_files101

Key facts

7,767GitHub stars
2contributors
60commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
101open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'draw.io dependencies' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,194 ⇿
0Stars
1,194Forks
66Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

02004006008001,0001,2001,194132025-042025-122026-08
Major 1Minor 2Patch 63

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 03:36 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained20 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmjsZip3.10.1etc/dependencies/package.json
npmperfect-freehand1.2.3etc/dependencies/package.json
npmjquery3.6.0etc/dependencies/package.json
npmpako2.2.0etc/dependencies/package.json
npmcrypto-js3.1.2etc/dependencies/package.json
npmdompurify3.4.13etc/dependencies/package.json
npmspin.js2.0.0etc/dependencies/package.json
npmroughjs4.6.6etc/dependencies/package.json
npmmathjax4.1.3etc/dependencies/package.json
npmimage-size^2.0.2etc/imageResize/package.json
npmsharp^0.35.3etc/imageResize/package.json
npmyargs^18.1.0etc/imageResize/package.json
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 44 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmcrypto-js3.1.2direct
npmdompurify3.4.13direct
npmimage-size2.0.2direct
npmjquery3.6.0direct
npmjsZip3.10.1direct
npmmathjax4.1.3direct
npmpako2.2.0direct
npmperfect-freehand1.2.3direct
npmroughjs4.6.6direct
npmsharp0.35.3direct
npmspin.js2.0.0direct
npmyargs18.1.0direct
npm@emnapi/runtime1.11.3indirect
npm@img/colour1.1.0indirect
npm@img/sharp-darwin-arm640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-darwin-x640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-freebsd-wasm320.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-arm641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-darwin-x641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm1.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-arm641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-ppc641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-riscv641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-s390x1.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linux-x641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-arm641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-libvips-linuxmusl-x641.3.2indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-arm0.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-arm640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-ppc640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-riscv640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-s390x0.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linux-x640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linuxmusl-arm640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-linuxmusl-x640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-wasm320.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-webcontainers-wasm320.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-arm640.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-ia320.35.3indirect
npm@img/sharp-win32-x640.35.3indirect
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.3indirect
npmcliui9.0.1indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmescalade3.1.2indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmget-east-asian-width1.6.0indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmstring-width7.2.0indirect
npmstring-width8.2.2indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.2.0indirect
npmtslib2.8.1indirect
npmwrap-ansi9.0.2indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs-parser22.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 56 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
crypto-js3.1.2directcritical24.2.0
image-size2.0.2directhigh2

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.