Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 17:19 UTC

jsonata-js / jsonata

JSONata query and transformation language - http://jsonata.org

JavaScriptMIT★ 2,680 stars⑂ 285 forkssince Sep 2016View on GitHub ↗

jsonata-js/jsonata holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (89/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated 28 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

jsonata-jsOrganization
20 followers3 public repossince Sep 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmjsonata2.2.26,974,7165942 days agojsonquerytransformationtransformmappingpath

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 28 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
13.9/18Commit volume34 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year34
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push28
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases48 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 28 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~97.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count48
latest_release_tagv1.8.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release28
mean_days_between_releases97.9
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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.6/60Stars2,680 stars
20.4/25Forks285 forks
8.4/15Watchers33 watchers
Inputs used
forks285
stars2,680
watchers33
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads6,974,716 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesjsonata
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads6,974,716
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?

67Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 59% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth61 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled61
top_contributor_share0.591
How it's scored
28.6/42Issue resolution68% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance290/328 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs290
open_issues155
closed_issues331
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio0.681
closed_unmerged_prs38
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.5/25Owner reach20 followers of jsonata-js
16.4/25Track record3 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginjsonata-js
public_repos3
account_age_days3,621

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 42 days ago
20/20Version history59 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjsonata
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish42

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

89Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://jsonata.org/
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_sitehttp://jsonata.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages1
unassessed_packages17
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 17 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.1/40Legible commit history62 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.62
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 practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
49.2/55Manageable file sizes2/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes90,893
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

2,680GitHub stars
61contributors
34commits, last 12 months
28days since last push
48releases
1bus factor
155open 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 ★ / 285 ⇿
0Stars
285Forks
48Releases

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.

05010015020025030027752016-092021-092026-08
Major 1Minor 4Patch 38

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 17:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
9CI-Tests28 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained7 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 18 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/cli^7.8.4indirect
npm@babel/core^7.8.4indirect
npm@babel/preset-env^7.8.4indirect
npmbrowserify^16.5.0indirect
npmchai^4.2.0indirect
npmchai-as-promised^7.1.1indirect
npmdocusaurus^1.14.0indirect
npmeslint8.0.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-ideal^0.1.3indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise^6.0.0indirect
npmjsdoc^3.6.3indirect
npmmkdirp^1.0.3indirect
npmmocha^7.0.1indirect
npmmocha-lcov-reporter^1.3.0indirect
npmnyc^15.1.0indirect
npmregenerator^0.14.4indirect
npmrequest^2.88.2indirect
npmuglify-es^3.3.10indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 17 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 statisticsnpm.