Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 19:12 UTC

jianghujs / jianghu

渐进式 企业级框架; 构建短平快的新手学习路径,掌握企业级应用开发的整体知识体系。

JavaScript · CSSNo license detected★ 10 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗

jianghujs/jianghu holds a health index of 38 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (60/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (27/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

38
overall / 100
Weak

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.

38
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 42 is calibrated to 38 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

jianghujsOrganization
6 followers40 public repossince Jul 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@jianghujs/jianghu5.1.472,55721354 days agoeggegg-framework

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

29At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 50 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
14.3/18Commit volume — 38 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year38
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push50
active_weeks_last_year8
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars10
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.4/80Monthly downloads — 2,557 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@jianghujs/jianghu
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,557
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.262
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
20/30PR acceptance — 2/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs2
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
6.1/25Owner reach — 6 followers of jianghujs
20/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginjianghujs
public_repos40
account_age_days1,508

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 — 213 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@jianghujs/jianghu
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://cn.openjianghu.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://cn.openjianghu.org
docs_sitehttps://cn.openjianghu.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

31At Risk · 16% of overall
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 — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 27 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 — no SAST tool detected
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_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
5.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: mysql2 2.3.3 (critical 9.8), axios 0.21.4 (high 8.6), nanoid 3.3.1 (high 7.5)
1.8/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 20 affected: @koa/cors 3.4.3 (high 8.6), axios 0.19.2 (high 8.6), braces 2.3.2 (high 7.5), +17 more
8.1/40No advisories left outstanding — 22 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,958 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories91
affected_packages23
assessed_packages1,067
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 15, moderate 6, low 1
direct_affected_packages3
Matched the npm:@jianghujs/jianghu@5.1.47 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1067 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.

27At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.1/40Legible commit history — 4 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.04
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc
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_configyes
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
48.1/55Manageable file sizes — 27/214 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes1,810,414
source_files_sampled214
oversized_source_files27

Key facts

10GitHub stars
12contributors
38commits, last 12 months
50days since last push
0releases
3bus factor
1open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212023-022023-092024-04

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 19:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained27 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 21
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmajv^8.7.1package.json
npmajv-formats^2.1.1package.json
npmaxios^0.21.1package.json
npmdayjs^1.10.5package.json
npmegg^2.15.1package.json
npmegg-bin^4.11.0package.json
npmegg-cors^2.2.3package.json
npmegg-knex^3.0.1package.json
npmegg-scripts^2.11.0package.json
npmegg-static^2.2.0package.json
npmegg-view-nunjucks^2.3.0package.json
npmkoa-proxy^1.0.0-alpha.3package.json
npmkoa-send^5.0.1package.json
npmlodash^4.17.21package.json
npmmd5-node^1.0.1package.json
npmmime3.0.0package.json
npmmysql2^2.3.3package.json
npmnanoid3.3.1package.json
npmtnwx^2.5.6package.json
npmspeakeasy^2.0.0package.json
npmqrcode^1.5.4package.json
All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 21 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmajv^8.7.1direct
npmajv-formats^2.1.1direct
npmaxios^0.21.1direct
npmdayjs^1.10.5direct
npmegg^2.15.1direct
npmegg-bin^4.11.0direct
npmegg-cors^2.2.3direct
npmegg-knex^3.0.1direct
npmegg-scripts^2.11.0direct
npmegg-static^2.2.0direct
npmegg-view-nunjucks^2.3.0direct
npmkoa-proxy^1.0.0-alpha.3direct
npmkoa-send^5.0.1direct
npmlodash^4.17.21direct
npmmd5-node^1.0.1direct
npmmime3.0.0direct
npmmysql2^2.3.3direct
npmnanoid3.3.1direct
npmqrcode^1.5.4direct
npmspeakeasy^2.0.0direct
npmtnwx^2.5.6direct
npm@socket.io/redis-adapter^7.1.0indirect
npmegg-mock^3.21.0indirect
npmioredis^4.28.2indirect
npmmockdate^3.0.5indirect
npmproxyquire^2.1.3indirect
npmsinon^14.0.0indirect
npmsocket.io4.4.1indirect
npmsocket.io-client4.4.1indirect
npmsqlite3^5.0.11indirect
npmsupertest^6.2.4indirect
Dependency advisories 23

Installing npm:@jianghujs/jianghu@5.1.47 pulls in 1,067 packages, direct and transitive: 23 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mysql22.3.3directcritical73.23.1
axios0.21.4directhigh231.18.0
nanoid3.3.1directhigh45.1.16
@koa/cors3.4.3indirecthigh15.0.0
axios0.19.2indirecthigh251.18.0
braces2.3.2indirecthigh13.0.3
decode-uri-component0.2.2indirecthigh10.5.0
dicer0.2.5indirecthigh1—
follow-redirects1.5.10indirecthigh51.16.0
form-data2.3.3indirecthigh24.0.6
ip1.1.9indirecthigh1—
js-yaml3.13.1indirecthigh54.3.2
knex0.95.15indirecthigh12.4.0
minimatch3.0.4indirecthigh410.2.3
uuid3.4.0indirecthigh113.0.1
uuid8.3.2indirecthigh113.0.1
diff3.5.0indirectmoderate18.0.3
micromatch3.1.10indirectmoderate14.0.8
qs6.5.5indirectmoderate26.16.0
request2.88.2indirectmoderate13.0.0
tough-cookie2.5.0indirectmoderate14.1.3
xml2js0.4.23indirectmoderate10.5.0
debug3.2.6indirectlow14.3.1

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.