Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 18:37 UTC

jshttp / fresh

HTTP request freshness testing

JavaScriptMIT★ 162 stars⑂ 34 forkssince Jun 2012View on GitHub ↗

jshttp/fresh holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Security (71/100) and lowest on Vitality (32/100). It was last updated 42 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

jshttpOrganization
239 followers29 public repossince Aug 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmfresh0.5.2508,294,730143246 days agofreshhttpconditionalcache

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

32At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 42 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume11 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push42
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases14 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 698 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~427.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release698
mean_days_between_releases427.8
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?

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.8/60Stars162 stars
12.7/25Forks34 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks34
stars162
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads508,294,730 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesfresh
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads508,294,730
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 84% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.839
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
14.7/30PR acceptance26/53 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs26
open_issues1
closed_issues15
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.938
closed_unmerged_prs27
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
17.1/25Owner reach239 followers of jshttp
22.8/25Track record29 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers239
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginjshttp
public_repos29
account_age_days4,386
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 3,246 days ago
20/20Version history14 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesfresh
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3,246

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjavascript, nodejs, http, last-modified, etag, 304
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
1/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
4/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages11
unassessed_packages0
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 11 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history86 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.956
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.yml
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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_share0.1
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes7,163
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

162GitHub stars
17contributors
11commits, last 12 months
42days since last push
14releases
1bus 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 ★ / 34 ⇿
0Stars
34Forks
12Releases

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.

01325383222012-122019-092026-06
Major 2Minor 4Patch 6

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 18:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 7/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 11

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmbeautify-benchmark0.2.4indirect
npmbenchmark2.1.4indirect
npmeslint8.12.0indirect
npmeslint-config-standard14.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import2.25.4indirect
npmeslint-plugin-markdown2.2.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-node11.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise6.0.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-standard4.1.0indirect
npmmocha9.2.0indirect
npmnyc15.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 11 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsnpm.