# micromatch/picomatch — health index 34/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository micromatch/picomatch by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At risk band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/micromatch/picomatch
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/micromatch/picomatch
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/micromatch/picomatch/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/micromatch/picomatch.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 70/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 84/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 65/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 75/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 34/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 41/100 | At risk |

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Blazing fast and accurate glob matcher written JavaScript, with no dependencies and full support for standard and extended Bash glob features, including braces, extglobs, POSIX brackets, and regular expressions. Used by GraphQL, Jest, Astro, Snowpack, Storybook, bulma, Serverless, fdir, Netlify, AWS Amplify, Revogrid, rollup, routify, open-wc, imba, ava, docusaurus, fast-glob, globby, chokidar, anymatch, cloudflare/miniflare, pts, and more than 5 million projects! Please follow picomatch's author: https://github.com/jonschlinkert |
| Homepage | https://github.com/micromatch |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 1,280 |
| Forks | 122 |
| Created | 2018-11-05 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | 4.0.5 |
| Commits (last year) | 30 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | micromatch, match, glob, matcher, node-glob, minimatch, multimatch, globber, regex, regexp, regular-expression, glob-pattern, matching, find, fast-glob, fdir |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | picomatch | 4.0.5 | 1,747,460,904 |

## Vitality — 70/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 1 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 1.4 / 36 | 2/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.4 / 18 | 30 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 9 / 10 | 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9 |

### Release discipline — 84/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 8 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 19 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | a release every ~327.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 19 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 84/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 50.4 / 60 | 1,280 stars |
| Forks | partial | 17.4 / 25 | 122 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 6.2 / 15 | 14 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 1,747,460,904 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 65/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 42/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 56% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 27 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 35 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 25.8 / 46.8 | 55% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 31.1 / 38.2 | 70/86 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 4.5 / 15 | Found 7/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 14.9 / 25 | 116 followers of micromatch |
| Track record | partial | 22.6 / 25 | 28 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 19 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 33 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 75/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 12 / 20 | 7 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6 |

### Documentation — 65/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://github.com/micromatch |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 16 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 34/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 34/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 1.5 / 2.5 | 7 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | Found 7/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 35 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |
| SAST | partial | 1 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 50/100 (Moderate)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | partial | 50 / 100 | Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 41/100 (At risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 30/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 29.6 / 40 | 55 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 45/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.json |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |

### Code legibility for models — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | JavaScript without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 51.5 / 55 | 4/62 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt