# mrdoob/three.js — health index 89/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository mrdoob/three.js by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/mrdoob/three.js
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/mrdoob/three.js
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/mrdoob/three.js/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/mrdoob/three.js.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% | 97/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 97/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 78/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 94/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 80/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 59/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | JavaScript 3D Library. |
| Homepage | https://threejs.org/ |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 113,897 |
| Forks | 36,435 |
| Created | 2010-03-23 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | r185 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,044 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | javascript, 3d, virtual-reality, augmented-reality, webgl, webgl2, webgpu, webxr, webaudio, canvas, svg, html5 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | three | 0.185.1 | 47,812,329 |

## Vitality — 97/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 2044 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 20 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~48.3 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 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 97/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 113,897 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 36,435 forks |
| Watchers | met | 15 / 15 | 2,513 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (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 | met | 6.3 / 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 | 47,812,329 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 78/100 (Good)

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) — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 12 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 47% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 27 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 82/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.9 / 46.8 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 30.3 / 38.2 | 15870/20019 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 6 / 15 | Found 11/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 75/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 25,344 followers of mrdoob |
| Track record | partial | 24.9 / 25 | 58 public repos, account ~17 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 20 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 312 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 94/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 6 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.js |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://threejs.org/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 12 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 80/100 (Good)

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 — 75/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3 / 7.5 | Found 11/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 27 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | met | 5 / 5 | all dependencies are pinned |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 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 | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 2 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 239 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

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 | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 59/100 (Moderate)

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 — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt present |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 72 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 14 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | met | 10 / 10 | all dependencies are pinned |

### Code legibility for models — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | JavaScript without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.9 / 55 | 33/1633 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 |

## 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