Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 10:49 UTC

nimsforest / nimsforestwebcomponents

Go package providing HTML layout, Tailwind CSS, and template helpers for NimsForest web UIs

HTML · Go · CSSNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗

nimsforest/nimsforestwebcomponents holds a health index of 27 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (67/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (1/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

27
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.

27
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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

nimsforestOrganization
1 follower6 public repossince Feb 2025

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/nimsforest/nimsforestwebcomponentsv0.19.1-2711 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

67Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 9 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence6/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume30 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases27 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~18.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv0.19.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases18.3
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?

1Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

35Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of nimsforest
9.3/25Track record6 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnimsforest
public_repos6
account_age_days582

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 11 days ago
20/20Version history27 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/nimsforest/nimsforestwebcomponents
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

19Critical · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories12
affected_packages5
assessed_packages77
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 4, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 77 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.

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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history25 of 30 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.833
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice24 of the last 30 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.8
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
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 codeHTML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes50,917
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
30commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
27releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.0 / 10
2.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 10:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 77

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 77 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/yuin/goldmarkv1.8.2indirect
npm@alloc/quick-lru5.2.0indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.13indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.scandir2.1.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.stat2.0.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.walk1.2.8indirect
npm@tailwindcss/forms0.5.11indirect
npm@tailwindcss/typography0.5.19indirect
npmany-promise1.3.0indirect
npmanymatch3.1.3indirect
npmarg5.0.2indirect
npmbinary-extensions2.3.0indirect
npmbraces3.0.3indirect
npmcamelcase-css2.0.1indirect
npmchokidar3.6.0indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmcssesc3.0.0indirect
npmdidyoumean1.2.2indirect
npmdlv1.1.3indirect
npmfast-glob3.3.3indirect
npmfastq1.20.1indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfill-range7.1.1indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmglob-parent6.0.2indirect
npmhasown2.0.2indirect
npmis-binary-path2.1.0indirect
npmis-core-module2.16.1indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmjiti1.21.7indirect
npmlilconfig3.1.3indirect
npmlines-and-columns1.2.4indirect
npmmerge21.4.1indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.8indirect
npmmini-svg-data-uri1.4.4indirect
npmmz2.7.0indirect
npmnanoid3.3.11indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmobject-assign4.1.1indirect
npmobject-hash3.0.0indirect
npmpath-parse1.0.7indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.3indirect
npmpify2.3.0indirect
npmpirates4.0.7indirect
npmpostcss8.5.8indirect
npmpostcss-import15.1.0indirect
npmpostcss-js4.1.0indirect
npmpostcss-load-config6.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-nested6.2.0indirect
npmpostcss-selector-parser6.0.10indirect
npmpostcss-selector-parser6.1.2indirect
npmpostcss-value-parser4.2.0indirect
npmqueue-microtask1.2.3indirect
npmread-cache1.0.0indirect
npmreaddirp3.6.0indirect
npmresolve1.22.11indirect
npmreusify1.1.0indirect
npmrun-parallel1.2.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmsucrase3.35.1indirect
npmsupports-preserve-symlinks-flag1.0.0indirect
npmtailwindcss3.4.19indirect
npmthenify3.3.1indirect
npmthenify-all1.6.0indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.15indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmts-interface-checker0.1.13indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 77 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
nanoid3.3.11indirecthigh35.1.16
picomatch2.3.1indirecthigh24.0.4
picomatch4.0.3indirecthigh24.0.4
postcss8.5.8indirecthigh48.5.23
postcss-selector-parser6.1.2indirectmoderate17.1.3

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 statisticsGo.