# jnakagawa/loggy — health index 26/100 (At Risk)

> Inspection of the public repository jnakagawa/loggy by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 26 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/jnakagawa/loggy
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/jnakagawa/loggy
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/jnakagawa/loggy/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/j/jnakagawa/loggy.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-18
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 39/100 | Weak |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 12/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 39/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 40/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 18/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 60/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 32 is calibrated to 26 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Classification | cli, browser-extension, library |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| Stars | 1 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2025-12-02 |
| Last push | 2026-01-23 |
| Latest release | v1.0.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 32 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | ms | 2.1.3 | 2,070,982,185 |
| npm | uuid | 14.0.2 | 1,107,933,683 |
| npm | async | 3.2.6 | 399,728,508 |
| npm | cliui | 9.0.1 | 910,504,038 |
| npm | debug | 4.4.3 | 2,690,863,405 |
| npm | mkdirp | 3.0.1 | 491,724,615 |
| npm | escalade | 3.2.0 | 712,918,031 |
| npm | semaphore | 1.1.0 | 3,301,604 |

## Vitality — 39/100 (Weak)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 19/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 3.6 / 36 | last push 238 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.1 / 36 | 3/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.6 / 18 | 32 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 16.2 / 36 | latest release 238 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~6.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | no human commit for 246 days, with nothing left unanswered; held at dormant by nothing open to answer, a release within the year |

## Community & Adoption — 12/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 1 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | not met | 0 / 22.5 | no license file detected |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 39/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 10/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 67/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 3/3 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 47/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 5 / 25 | 4 followers of jnakagawa |
| Track record | partial | 22.3 / 25 | 25 public repos, account ~11 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 40/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | node_modules/cliui/package.json ("standard"), node_modules/color-convert/package.json ("xo"), node_modules/debug/package.json ("xo"), node_modules/ms/package.json ("eslintConfig") |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 18/100 (Critical)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 18/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | not met | 0 / 2.5 | license file not detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

## AI Readiness — 60/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 27 of 32 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | node_modules/cliui/package.json ("standard"), node_modules/color-convert/package.json ("xo"), node_modules/debug/package.json ("xo"), node_modules/ms/package.json ("eslintConfig") |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | node_modules/http-mitm-proxy/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 26 of the last 32 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 78/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | JavaScript with type-check config (node_modules/http-mitm-proxy/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 51.1 / 55 | 1/14 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch npm package 'extension-analytics-logger' from its registry
- npm package 'ms' points at a different repository (https://github.com/vercel/ms); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'uuid' points at a different repository (https://github.com/uuidjs/uuid); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'async' points at a different repository (https://github.com/caolan/async); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'cliui' points at a different repository (https://github.com/yargs/cliui); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'debug' points at a different repository (https://github.com/debug-js/debug); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'mkdirp' points at a different repository (https://github.com/isaacs/node-mkdirp); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'escalade' points at a different repository (https://github.com/lukeed/escalade); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'semaphore' points at a different repository (https://github.com/abrkn/semaphore.js); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt