Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 23:35 UTC

jktrn / enscribe.dev

My personal website, built with Astro, CSS, and love.

TypeScript · AstroCustom license★ 607 stars⑂ 56 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗

jktrn/enscribe.dev holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

enscribePersonal account
459 followers5 public repossince Sep 2020@otter-sec

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
15.7/18Commit volume — 55 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year55
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 86 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~169.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv4.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release86
mean_days_between_releases169.7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.1/60Stars — 607 stars
14.5/25Forks — 56 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks56
stars607
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.977
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance — 22/25 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_prs22
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.1/25Owner reach — 459 followers of jktrn
17.7/25Track record — 5 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers459
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginjktrn
public_repos5
account_age_days2,212
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://enscribe.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsblog, typescript, ctf-writeups, ctf-challenges, personal-blog, personal-site, personal-website, astro, css, landing, portfolio, website, website-design
has_wikino
homepagehttps://enscribe.dev
docs_sitehttps://enscribe.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 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 — 0 out of 9 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 — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 53 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages22
unassessed_packages22
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 22 resolved dependencies against OSV. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json
11/11Static type checking — packages/linebreak/playground/tsconfig.json, packages/linebreak/tsconfig.json, tests/linebreak/tsconfig.json, tests/site/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
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_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspackages/linebreak/playground/tsconfig.json, packages/linebreak/tsconfig.json, tests/linebreak/tsconfig.json, tests/site/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
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
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/189 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes25,409
source_files_sampled189
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

607GitHub stars
6contributors
55commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package '@enscribe/linebreak' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 56 ⇿
0Stars
56Forks
7Releases

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.

01020304050605322023-102025-042026-10
Major 3Minor 4Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
2.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-18 23:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities53 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@astrojs/markdown-satteri^0.3.7package.json
npm@astrojs/rss^4.0.18package.json
npm@astrojs/sitemap^3.7.3package.json
npm@aws-sdk/client-s3^3.1094.0package.json
npm@enscribe/linebreakworkspace:*package.json
npm@expressive-code/plugin-collapsible-sections^0.42.0package.json
npm@expressive-code/plugin-line-numbers^0.42.0package.json
npmastro^7.0.2package.json
npmgithub-slugger^2.0.0package.json
npmhast-util-select^6.0.4package.json
npmhast-util-to-html^9.0.5package.json
npmhastscript^9.0.1package.json
npmmaplibre-gl^6.3.0package.json
npmsatteri^0.10.5package.json
npmsatteri-expressive-code^0.1.24package.json
npmsharp^0.34.5package.json
npmtemml^0.13.3package.json
npm@chenglou/pretext0.0.8packages/linebreak/package.json
npmhyphen1.14.1packages/linebreak/package.json
All dependencies 44

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 18 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@astrojs/markdown-satteri^0.3.7direct
npm@astrojs/rss^4.0.18direct
npm@astrojs/sitemap^3.7.3direct
npm@aws-sdk/client-s3^3.1094.0direct
npm@chenglou/pretext0.0.8direct
npm@expressive-code/plugin-collapsible-sections^0.42.0direct
npm@expressive-code/plugin-line-numbers^0.42.0direct
npmastro^7.0.2direct
npmgithub-slugger^2.0.0direct
npmhast-util-select^6.0.4direct
npmhast-util-to-html^9.0.5direct
npmhastscript^9.0.1direct
npmhyphen1.14.1direct
npmmaplibre-gl^6.3.0direct
npmsatteri^0.10.5direct
npmsatteri-expressive-code^0.1.24direct
npmsharp^0.34.5direct
npmtemml^0.13.3direct
npm@arethetypeswrong/core0.18.5indirect
npm@astrojs/check^0.9.10indirect
npm@biomejs/biome^2.5.1indirect
npm@playwright/test1.61.1indirect
npm@sveltejs/vite-plugin-svelte7.2.0indirect
npm@types/bun1.3.14indirect
npm@types/bun^1.3.14indirect
npm@types/hast3.0.5indirect
npm@types/hyphen1.14.0indirect
npm@types/mdast4.0.4indirect
npm@zag-js/dialog1.43.0indirect
npm@zag-js/slider1.43.0indirect
npm@zag-js/svelte1.43.0indirect
npm@zag-js/toggle-group1.43.0indirect
npm@zag-js/tooltip1.43.0indirect
npmmdast-util-to-hast^13.2.1indirect
npmpagefind^1.5.2indirect
npmpublint0.3.21indirect
npmsvelte5.56.8indirect
npmsvelte-check4.7.4indirect
npmtsdown0.22.12indirect
npmtypescript6.0.2indirect
npmtypescript6.0.3indirect
npmvite8.1.4indirect
npmvite8.2.0indirect
npmwrangler^4.114.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 22 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 22 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.