Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-16 00:34 UTC

kcartlidge / nodepub

[ACTIVE] Node module to create valid EPUB 2 and EPUB 3 ebooks from chapters and metadata.

JavaScript · EJSMIT★ 52 stars⑂ 23 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗

kcartlidge/nodepub holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (58/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (44/100). It was last updated 38 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

K CartlidgePersonal account
9 followers137 public repossince May 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmnodepub5.1.12,2952338 days agoepubebook

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 38 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push38
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 22 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~183.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count22
latest_release_tagv5.1.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release38
mean_days_between_releases183.2
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.7/60Stars — 52 stars
11.2/25Forks — 23 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks23
stars52
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.8/80Monthly downloads — 2,295 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesnodepub
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,295
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.917
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
12.4/30PR acceptance — 7/17 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues0
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs10
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
7.2/25Owner reach — 9 followers of kcartlidge
25/25Track record — 137 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkcartlidge
public_repos137
account_age_days4,167
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 38 days ago
20/20Version history — 23 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnodepub
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish38

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — package.json ("standard")
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.npmjs.com/package/nodepub
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnode, epub, epub-generation
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/nodepub
docs_sitehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/nodepub
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 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 3 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 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
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
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.3
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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages47
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:nodepub@5.1.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 47 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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
4.3/40Legible commit history — 8 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.08
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — package.json ("standard")
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
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
lockfilespackage-lock.json
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
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes12,043
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

52GitHub stars
4contributors
10commits, last 12 months
38days since last push
22releases
1bus factor
0open 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 ★ / 23 ⇿
0Stars
23Forks
14Releases

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.

0481216202012016-022020-112025-08
Major 1Minor 4Patch 9

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-16 00:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 3 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 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
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
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmarchiver^8.0.0package.json
npmaudit^0.0.6package.json
npmejs^6.0.1package.json
npmmoment^2.30.1package.json
All dependencies 74

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 71 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmarchiver8.0.0direct
npmaudit0.0.6direct
npmmoment2.30.1direct
npm@sinonjs/commons3.0.1indirect
npm@sinonjs/fake-timers15.4.0indirect
npm@sinonjs/samsam10.0.2indirect
npmabort-controller3.0.0indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmasync3.2.6indirect
npmb4a1.6.7indirect
npmbalanced-match4.0.4indirect
npmbare-events2.5.4indirect
npmbase64-js1.5.1indirect
npmbrace-expansion5.0.9indirect
npmbrowser-stdout1.3.1indirect
npmbuffer6.0.3indirect
npmbuffer-crc321.0.0indirect
npmchai6.2.2indirect
npmchokidar5.0.0indirect
npmcompress-commons7.0.1indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.3indirect
npmcrc-321.2.2indirect
npmcrc32-stream7.0.1indirect
npmdebug4.4.1indirect
npmdiff9.0.0indirect
npmevent-target-shim5.0.1indirect
npmevents3.3.0indirect
npmfast-fifo1.3.2indirect
npmfind-up5.0.0indirect
npmglob13.0.6indirect
npmhas-flag4.0.0indirect
npmieee7541.2.1indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmis-path-inside3.0.3indirect
npmis-stream4.0.1indirect
npmis-unicode-supported0.1.0indirect
npmisarray1.0.0indirect
npmjs-yaml5.4.1indirect
npmlazystream1.0.1indirect
npmlocate-path6.0.0indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.2indirect
npmminimatch10.2.6indirect
npmminipass7.1.3indirect
npmmocha12.0.0indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmp-limit3.1.0indirect
npmp-locate5.0.0indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-scurry2.0.2indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmprocess0.11.10indirect
npmprocess-nextick-args2.0.1indirect
npmreadable-stream2.3.8indirect
npmreadable-stream4.7.0indirect
npmreaddir-glob3.0.0indirect
npmreaddirp5.1.1indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmserialize-javascript7.1.1indirect
npmsinon22.1.0indirect
npmstreamx2.22.1indirect
npmstring_decoder1.1.1indirect
npmstring_decoder1.3.0indirect
npmstrip-json-comments5.0.3indirect
npmsupports-color8.1.1indirect
npmtar-stream3.1.7indirect
npmtext-decoder1.2.3indirect
npmtype-detect4.0.8indirect
npmtype-detect4.1.0indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmworkerpool10.0.3indirect
npmyocto-queue0.1.0indirect
npmzip-stream7.0.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:nodepub@5.1.1 pulls in 47 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 — npm.