Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 05:14 UTC

mikeholownych / citable

Production-grade SEO, AEO, and GEO agent skill with auditable detection, claim governance, evidence validation, and multi-agent installation.

JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

mikeholownych/citable holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
overall / 100
Good

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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mike HolownychPersonal account
1 follower32 public repossince May 2014Ethical AI Syndicate

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 105 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year105
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 19 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count19
latest_release_tagv1.19.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases5.7

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
38.9/80Monthly downloads — 830 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@nebulacomponents/citable
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads830
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 65/68 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs65
open_issues0
closed_issues11
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of mikeholownych
23.1/25Track record — 32 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmikeholownych
public_repos32
account_age_days4,492
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 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@nebulacomponents/citable
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://nebulacomponents.com/resources/citable
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaeo, agent-skill, ai-search, citation-readiness, cli, evidence-governance, geo, nodejs, seo
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://nebulacomponents.com/resources/citable
docs_sitehttps://nebulacomponents.com/resources/citable
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.8

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_packages33
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:@nebulacomponents/citable@1.19.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 33 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://nebulacomponents.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 92 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://nebulacomponents.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.989
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes672
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.07
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 3/284 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes112,208
source_files_sampled284
oversized_source_files3
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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

1GitHub stars
1contributors
105commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
19releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 05:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmajv^8.20.0package.json
npmajv-formats^3.0.1package.json
npmcsv-parse^7.0.1package.json
npmjs-yaml^5.2.1package.json
npmnode-html-parser^9.0.0package.json
npmpdfjs-dist^6.1.200package.json
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmajv8.20.0direct
npmajv-formats3.0.1direct
npmcsv-parse7.0.2direct
npmjs-yaml5.4.1direct
npmnode-html-parser9.0.4direct
npmpdfjs-dist6.3.289direct
npm@napi-rs/canvas1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-android-arm641.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-darwin-arm641.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-darwin-x641.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-arm64-gnu1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-arm64-musl1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-riscv64-gnu1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-x64-gnu1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-linux-x64-musl1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-win32-arm64-msvc1.0.2indirect
npm@napi-rs/canvas-win32-x64-msvc1.0.2indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmboolbase1.0.0indirect
npmcss-select5.2.2indirect
npmcss-what6.2.2indirect
npmdom-serializer2.0.0indirect
npmdomelementtype2.3.0indirect
npmdomhandler5.0.3indirect
npmdomutils3.2.2indirect
npmentities4.5.0indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmfast-uri3.1.7indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse1.0.0indirect
npmnth-check2.1.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@nebulacomponents/citable@1.19.0 pulls in 33 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.