Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 14:40 UTC

localForage / localForage

💾 Offline storage, improved. Wraps IndexedDB, WebSQL, or localStorage using a simple but powerful API.

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 25,813 stars⑂ 1,288 forkssince Oct 2013View on GitHub ↗

#localforage #localstorage #javascript #offline #storage #indexeddb #websql

localForage/localForage holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (89/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). It was last updated 778 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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)

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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

localForageOrganization

49 followers14 public repossince Apr 2016

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
npm	localforage	1.10.0	30,482,806	62	1855 days ago	indexeddb localstorage storage websql

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

18Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

no human commit in 778 daysautomated commits excludedpull requests left unansweredissues left unansweredreleases stalledOpenSSF Scorecard reports it unmaintainedcontinuous integration brokenOverall rating: At Risk ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 778 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	778
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

44Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 26 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,855 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~145.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	26
latest_release_tag	1.10.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,855
mean_days_between_releases	145.4

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?

89Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

99Exceptional

How it's scored

60/60	Stars — 25,813 stars
25/25	Forks — 1,288 forks
13.8/15	Watchers — 305 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1,288
stars	25,813
watchers	305
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	badge.fury.io, badgen.net, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

80/80	Monthly downloads — 30,482,806 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	localforage
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	30,482,806
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?

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 94 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	94
top_contributor_share	0.597

Issue & PR responsiveness

70Good

How it's scored

29.5/42	Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
23.5/30	PR acceptance — 269/344 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	269
open_issues	215
closed_issues	508
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.703
closed_unmerged_prs	75
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
12.2/25	Owner reach — 49 followers of localForage
20.6/25	Track record — 14 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	49
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	localForage
public_repos	14
account_age_days	3,796

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1,855 days ago
20/20	Version history — 62 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	localforage
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1,855

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

40Weak

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .eslintrc
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://localforage.github.io/localForage
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	localforage, localstorage, javascript, offline, storage, indexeddb, websql
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://localforage.github.io/localForage
docs_site	https://localforage.github.io/localForage
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

38Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 10/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	3.8

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	2
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:localforage@1.10.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

37Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.8/40	Legible commit history — 69 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.69
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

49Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .eslintrc
11/11	Static type checking — typing-tests/tsconfig.json
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	typing-tests/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

80Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (typing-tests/tsconfig.json)
52.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/44 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	81,126
source_files_sampled	44
oversized_source_files	2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

25,813GitHub stars

94contributors

0commits, last 12 months

778days since last push

26releases

1bus factor

215open 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 ★ / 1,288 ⇿

0Stars

1,288Forks

16Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Major 0Minor 6Patch 10

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10

3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 14:40 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 10/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 35 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	lie	`3.1.1`	package.json

All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	lie	`3.1.1`	direct
npm	babel-core	`^6.5.1`	indirect
npm	babel-eslint	`^7.2.3`	indirect
npm	babel-loader	`^6.2.2`	indirect
npm	babel-plugin-add-module-exports	`^0.1.2`	indirect
npm	babel-plugin-transform-es2015-modules-umd	`^6.5.0`	indirect
npm	babel-preset-es2015	`^6.6.0`	indirect
npm	babel-preset-es2015-loose	`^7.0.0`	indirect
npm	babelify	`^7.2.0`	indirect
npm	browserify-derequire	`^0.9.4`	indirect
npm	bundle-collapser	`^1.2.1`	indirect
npm	cors	`^2.3.1`	indirect
npm	eslint-config-prettier	`^2.9.0`	indirect
npm	grunt	`^0.4.2`	indirect
npm	grunt-babel	`^6.0.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-browserify	`^3.8.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-concat	`^0.3.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-connect	`^0.8.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-uglify	`^0.4.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-watch	`^0.5.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-es3-safe-recast	`^0.1.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-eslint	`^20.0.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-rollup	`^0.6.2`	indirect
npm	grunt-run	`^0.5.2`	indirect
npm	grunt-saucelabs	`^5.1.2`	indirect
npm	grunt-ts	`^6.0.0-beta.11`	indirect
npm	grunt-webpack	`^1.0.11`	indirect
npm	husky	`^2.3.0`	indirect
npm	lint-staged	`^8.1.7`	indirect
npm	load-grunt-tasks	`^0.4.0`	indirect
npm	mocha	`^3.4.2`	indirect
npm	mocha-headless-chrome	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	prettier	`~1.12.0`	indirect
npm	rollupify	`^0.1.0`	indirect
npm	script-loader	`^0.6.1`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^2.0.3`	indirect
npm	uglify-js	`^2.3.x`	indirect
npm	webpack	`^1.12.13`	indirect
npm	webpack-dev-server	`^1.10.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:localforage@1.10.0 pulls in 2 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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records