Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 05:43 UTC

msaktype / stylefmt

stylefmt is a tool that automatically formats stylesheets.

JavaScript · CSSCustom license★ 2,081 stars⑂ 87 forkssince Aug 2015archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

msaktype/stylefmt holds a health index of 17 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (62/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

17
overall / 100
Critical

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.

17
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Masaaki MorishitaPersonal account
275 followers148 public repossince Feb 2012@0xType

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmstylefmtpoints to another repo — not scored6.0.332,952392886 days agocssformatformattercode-stylebeautifierpostcss-pluginpostcssstylelint

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 2,472 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2,472
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 26 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,579 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~25.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv5.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,579
mean_days_between_releases25.7
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?

58Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.8/60Stars — 2,081 stars
16.1/25Forks — 87 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks87
stars2,081
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.435
How it's scored
21.7/42Issue resolution — 52% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance — 121/133 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs121
open_issues97
closed_issues104
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.517
closed_unmerged_prs12
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
17.5/25Owner reach — 275 followers of msaktype
25/25Track record — 148 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers275
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmsaktype
public_repos148
account_age_days5,336
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscss, formatter, sass, postcss, postcss-plugins, stylelint
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

26At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier22
security_posture_before_jurisdiction30
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: postcss 6.0.23 (high 7.5)
5.9/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 5 affected: braces 1.8.5 (high 7.5), browserslist 1.7.7 (high 7.5), postcss 5.2.18 (high 7.5), +2 more
21.2/40No advisories left outstanding — 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,923 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories17
affected_packages6
assessed_packages252
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the npm:stylefmt@6.0.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 252 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16/40Legible commit history — 30 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.3
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.json
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/35 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes8,446
source_files_sampled35
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2,081GitHub stars
31contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,472days since last push
26releases
2bus factor
97open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • npm package 'stylefmt' points at a different repository (https://github.com/morishitter/stylefmt); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 87 ⇿
0Stars
87Forks
24Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0204060801008362015-082019-082023-09
Major 5Minor 19Patch 0

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 05:43 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 7 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 7/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
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 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmcss-color-list^0.0.1package.json
npmdiff^3.2.0package.json
npmeditorconfig^0.13.2package.json
npmgetopts^2.1.1package.json
npmcolorette^1.0.5package.json
npmglobby^6.1.0package.json
npmpostcss^6.0.1package.json
npmpostcss-scss^1.0.0package.json
npmpostcss-sorting^2.1.0package.json
npmpostcss-value-parser^3.3.0package.json
npmstdin^0.0.1package.json
npmstylelint^7.10.1package.json
npmstylelint-order^0.4.4package.json
All dependencies 18

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmcolorette^1.0.5direct
npmcss-color-list^0.0.1direct
npmdiff^3.2.0direct
npmeditorconfig^0.13.2direct
npmgetopts^2.1.1direct
npmglobby^6.1.0direct
npmpostcss^6.0.1direct
npmpostcss-scss^1.0.0direct
npmpostcss-sorting^2.1.0direct
npmpostcss-value-parser^3.3.0direct
npmstdin^0.0.1direct
npmstylelint^7.10.1direct
npmstylelint-order^0.4.4direct
npmeach-series^1.0.0indirect
npmeslint^3.19.0indirect
npmfaucet^0.0.1indirect
npmklaw^1.3.1indirect
npmtape^4.6.3indirect
Dependency advisories 6

Installing npm:stylefmt@6.0.3 pulls in 252 packages, direct and transitive: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
postcss6.0.23directhigh68.5.23
braces1.8.5indirecthigh13.0.3
browserslist1.7.7indirecthigh24.28.7
postcss5.2.18indirecthigh68.5.23
trim-newlines1.0.0indirecthigh14.0.1
micromatch2.3.11indirectmoderate14.0.8

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.