Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 14:55 UTC

micommunity / complexviewer

web based visualisation of molecular interaction data

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 12 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Aug 2014forkView on GitHub ↗

micommunity/complexviewer holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 419 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

28
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.

28
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 34 is calibrated to 28 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

7 followers15 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
npmcomplexviewer2.2.950239419 days agobiojsproteininteractionscomplexes

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 419 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push419
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases15 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 419 days ago
5.4/27Release cadencea release every ~382.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tag2.2.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release419
mean_days_between_releases382.5
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.9/60Stars12 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars12
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
36/80Monthly downloads502 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescomplexviewer
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads502
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.784
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance83/85 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs83
open_issues4
closed_issues123
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.969
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.5/25Owner reach7 followers of MICommunity
20.8/25Track record15 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginMICommunity
public_repos15
account_age_days4,360
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 419 days ago
20/20Version history39 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescomplexviewer
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish419

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

20At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://complexviewer.org
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://complexviewer.org
docs_sitehttp://complexviewer.org
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

31At Risk · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

17Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.json
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
53.4/55Manageable file sizes1/34 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes751,141
source_files_sampled34
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

12GitHub stars
9contributors
0commits, last 12 months
419days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
4open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 14:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmcolorbrewer1.3.0package.json
npmcore-js^3.15.2package.json
npmd3~7.1.1package.json
npmd3-ease~3.0.1package.json
npmd3-fetch~3.0.1package.json
npmd3-interpolate^3.0.1package.json
npmd3-polygon~3.0.1package.json
npmd3-scale~4.0.2package.json
npmd3-scale-chromatic^3.1.0package.json
npmd3-selection^3.0.0package.json
npmintersectionjs1.0.1package.json
npmjquery^3.6.0package.json
npmpoint2d0.0.1package.json
npmrgb-color2.1.2package.json
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmcolorbrewer1.3.0direct
npmcore-js^3.15.2direct
npmd3~7.1.1direct
npmd3-ease~3.0.1direct
npmd3-fetch~3.0.1direct
npmd3-interpolate^3.0.1direct
npmd3-polygon~3.0.1direct
npmd3-scale~4.0.2direct
npmd3-scale-chromatic^3.1.0direct
npmd3-selection^3.0.0direct
npmintersectionjs1.0.1direct
npmjquery^3.6.0direct
npmpoint2d0.0.1direct
npmrgb-color2.1.2direct
npm@babel/core^7.14.6indirect
npm@babel/preset-env^7.14.7indirect
npmbabel-loader^8.2.2indirect
npmcss-loader^5.2.6indirect
npmeslint^7.30.0indirect
npmfile-loader^6.2.0indirect
npmstyle-loader^1.2.1indirect
npmurl-loader^4.1.1indirect
npmwebpack^5.93.0indirect
npmwebpack-cli^5.1.4indirect
npmwebpack-merge^4.2.2indirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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