Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-30 11:21 UTC

mixpeek / connectors

Integration connectors for Mixpeek — modules and plug‑ins that bring Mixpeek’s contextual intelligence to third‑party ecosystems.

JavaScriptNo license detected★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

mixpeek/connectors holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (67/100) and lowest on Security (23/100). It was last updated 33 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 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MixpeekOrganization

58 followers41 public repossince Aug 2021

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	@mixpeek/n8n-nodes-mixpeek	1.0.486	4,613	487	33 days ago	n8n-community-node-package mixpeek multimodal semantic-search ai embeddings video-processing document-processing
npm	@mixpeek/aws-s3	1.0.0	17	1	231 days ago	aws s3 cloud-storage bucket event-driven lambda serverless mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector
npm	@mixpeek/openai	1.0.0	22	1	231 days ago	openai gpt embeddings function-calling assistant ai chatgpt mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector
npm	@mixpeek/sanity	1.0.0	17	1	231 days ago	sanity cms headless-cms content-enrichment webhook groq mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector
npm	@mixpeek/sentry	1.0.0	14	1	231 days ago	sentry error-tracking monitoring performance observability debugging mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector
npm	@mixpeek/strapi	1.0.0	15	1	231 days ago	strapi cms headless-cms content-enrichment lifecycle plugin mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector
npm	@mixpeek/datadog	1.0.0	14	1	231 days ago	datadog monitoring metrics logging tracing apm observability mixpeek multimodal enrichment connector

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

36Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 33 days ago
13.8/36	Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 517 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	517
human_commit_share	0
days_since_last_push	33
active_weeks_last_year	20

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	1
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
0/18	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	no
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

61Moderate

How it's scored

49/80	Monthly downloads — 4,712 downloads/month across npm
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	@mixpeek/n8n-nodes-mixpeek, @mixpeek/aws-s3, @mixpeek/openai, @mixpeek/sanity, @mixpeek/sentry, @mixpeek/strapi, @mixpeek/datadog
dependents	—
ecosystems	npm
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	4,712
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?

40Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	0
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): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
12.7/25	Owner reach — 58 followers of mixpeek
22/25	Track record — 41 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	58
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	mixpeek
public_repos	41
account_age_days	1,855

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 7 package(s) on npm
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 33 days ago
20/20	Version history — 487 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	@mixpeek/n8n-nodes-mixpeek, @mixpeek/aws-s3, @mixpeek/openai, @mixpeek/sanity, @mixpeek/sentry, @mixpeek/strapi, @mixpeek/datadog
ecosystems	npm
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	33

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .eslintrc.js
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

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

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

23At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

23At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 127 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	2.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.mixpeek.com/llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.mixpeek.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — prebid.js/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js
11/11	Static type checking — iab-ad-product-taxonomy/python/src/mixpeek_iab_product/py.typed, n8n/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
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	prebid.js/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	iab-ad-product-taxonomy/python/src/mixpeek_iab_product/py.typed, n8n/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

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (iab-ad-product-taxonomy/python/src/mixpeek_iab_product/py.typed, n8n/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/674 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	43,065
source_files_sampled	674
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 — demos, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	demos, 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

1GitHub stars

1contributors

517commits, last 12 months

33days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

0open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package '@mixpeek/fhir' from its registry
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.3 / 10

2.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-30 11:20 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
0	Vulnerabilities	127 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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