Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-26 16:02 UTC

metarhia / impress

Enterprise application server for Node.js and Metarhia private cloud ⚡

JavaScriptMIT★ 982 stars⑂ 131 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗

#nodejs #application-server #metarhia #api #websocket #cloud #scalable #server #cluster #enterprise #rpc #architecture #meta-edu #hacktoberfest

metarhia/impress holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MetarhiaOrganization

742 followers97 public repossince Mar 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	impress	3.1.2	2,094	724	299 days ago	application server isolation enterprise security lightweight scalable api rpc soa service stateful rest restful web framework router routing cluster private cloud http https websocket websockets interactive app backend fullstack

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

55Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 16 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
14.7/18	Commit volume — 42 commits in the last year
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

commits_last_year	42
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	16
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

70Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 81 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 298 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~78.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	81
latest_release_tag	v3.1.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	298
mean_days_between_releases	78.9

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?

76Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

75Good

How it's scored

48.5/60	Stars — 982 stars
17.6/25	Forks — 131 forks
9.1/15	Watchers — 45 watchers

Inputs used

forks	131
stars	982
watchers	45
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

55Moderate

How it's scored

44.3/80	Monthly downloads — 2,094 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	impress
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,094
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

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

35Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 89% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 40 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	40
top_contributor_share	0.892

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate

How it's scored

40.6/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
7.1/30	PR acceptance — 254/1,069 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	254
open_issues	30
closed_issues	873
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.967
closed_unmerged_prs	815
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

94Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20.6/25	Owner reach — 742 followers of metarhia
25/25	Track record — 97 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	742
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	metarhia
public_repos	97
account_age_days	3,775

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

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 299 days ago
20/20	Version history — 724 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	impress
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	299

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

86Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — eslint.config.js
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://metarhia.com
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 14 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	nodejs, application-server, metarhia, api, websocket, cloud, scalable, server, cluster, enterprise, rpc, architecture, meta-edu, hacktoberfest
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://metarhia.com
docs_site	https://metarhia.com
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

56Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
2.2/7.5	Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5	Packaging — no data
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	9
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:impress@3.1.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

7Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.9/40	Legible commit history — 13 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.13
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

56Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — eslint.config.js
11/11	Static type checking — types/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

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

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (types/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/70 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	8,740
source_files_sampled	70
oversized_source_files	0

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 — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
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

982GitHub stars

40contributors

42commits, last 12 months

16days since last push

81releases

1bus factor

30open 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 ★ / 131 ⇿

0Stars

131Forks

81Releases

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.

Major 2Minor 7Patch 57

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10

5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-26 16:02 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
8	CI-Tests	8 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 3/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10	Contributors	project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
3	Maintained	4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	metacom	`^3.2.6`	package.json
npm	metaconfiguration	`^3.0.3`	package.json
npm	metalog	`^3.1.18`	package.json
npm	metaschema	`^2.2.2`	package.json
npm	metautil	`^5.5.2`	package.json
npm	metavm	`^1.4.5`	package.json
npm	metawatch	`^1.2.5`	package.json

All dependencies 109

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 102 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	metacom	`3.2.6`	direct
npm	metaconfiguration	`3.0.3`	direct
npm	metalog	`3.1.18`	direct
npm	metaschema	`2.2.2`	direct
npm	metautil	`5.5.2`	direct
npm	metavm	`1.4.5`	direct
npm	metawatch	`1.2.5`	direct
npm	@eslint-community/eslint-utils	`4.9.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint-community/regexpp	`4.12.2`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-array	`0.21.2`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-helpers	`0.4.2`	indirect
npm	@eslint/core	`0.17.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint/eslintrc	`3.3.5`	indirect
npm	@eslint/js	`9.39.4`	indirect
npm	@eslint/object-schema	`2.1.7`	indirect
npm	@eslint/plugin-kit	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/core	`0.19.2`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/node	`0.16.8`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/types	`0.15.0`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/module-importer	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/retry	`0.4.3`	indirect
npm	@pkgr/core	`0.3.6`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@types/json-schema	`7.0.15`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`25.9.4`	indirect
npm	@types/ws	`8.18.1`	indirect
npm	acorn	`8.17.0`	indirect
npm	acorn-jsx	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	ajv	`6.15.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	argparse	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`1.1.15`	indirect
npm	callsites	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	indirect
npm	concolor	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	deep-is	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	eslint	`9.39.4`	indirect
npm	eslint-config-metarhia	`9.1.9`	indirect
npm	eslint-config-prettier	`10.1.8`	indirect
npm	eslint-plugin-prettier	`5.5.6`	indirect
npm	eslint-scope	`8.4.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`3.4.3`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`4.2.1`	indirect
npm	espree	`10.4.0`	indirect
npm	esquery	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	esrecurse	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	estraverse	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	esutils	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-deep-equal	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	fast-diff	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	fast-json-stable-stringify	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	fast-levenshtein	`2.0.6`	indirect
npm	file-entry-cache	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	find-up	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	flat-cache	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	flatted	`3.4.2`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	globals	`14.0.0`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	ignore	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	import-fresh	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	imurmurhash	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	json-buffer	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	json-schema-traverse	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	json-stable-stringify-without-jsonify	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	keyv	`4.5.4`	indirect
npm	levn	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.merge	`4.6.2`	indirect
npm	metaskills	`1.0.4`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`3.1.5`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	natural-compare	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	optionator	`0.9.4`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	parent-module	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	prelude-ls	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	prettier	`3.8.2`	indirect
npm	prettier	`3.8.4`	indirect
npm	prettier-linter-helpers	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	resolve-from	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	strip-json-comments	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	synckit	`0.11.13`	indirect
npm	type-check	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`7.24.6`	indirect
npm	uri-js	`4.4.1`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	word-wrap	`1.2.5`	indirect
npm	ws	`8.21.0`	indirect
npm	yocto-queue	`0.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:impress@3.1.2 pulls in 9 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 v0.27.0 — 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