Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 21:48 UTC

npm / minify-registry-metadata

how big will docs be if we trim some things out?

JavaScriptMIT★ 4 stars⑂ 2 forkssince May 2018forkView on GitHub ↗

npm/minify-registry-metadata holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (28/100). It was last updated 109 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

npmOrganization · verified domain
5,264 followers358 public repossince Dec 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npmminify-registry-metadata6.0.04,93911164 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

43Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 109 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
11.5/18Commit volume — 18 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year18
human_commit_share0.624
days_since_last_push109
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 4 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 164 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~416 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count4
latest_release_tagv6.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release164
mean_days_between_releases416
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?

28At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars — 4 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars4
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
49.2/80Monthly downloads — 4,939 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesminify-registry-metadata
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads4,939
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?

83Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 38% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 7 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.38
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
15/30PR acceptance — 44/88 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs44
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 5,264 followers of npm
25/25Track record — 358 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers5,264
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnpm
public_repos358
account_age_days4,705

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 164 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesminify-registry-metadata
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish164

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsnpm-cli
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages6
affected_by_severitynone
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 1 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.1/40Legible commit history — 36 of 58 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.621
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 93
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 of the last 93 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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_share0.333
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
45/55Manageable file sizes — 4/22 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes909,327
source_files_sampled22
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

4GitHub stars
7contributors
18commits, last 12 months
109days since last push
4releases
2bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
2Releases

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.

111222212023-032024-072025-12
Major 2Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 21:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
6CI-Tests15 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@npmcli/eslint-config^7.0.0indirect
npm@npmcli/template-oss5.1.1indirect
npmchanges-stream^2.2.0indirect
npmconcurrent-couch-follower^1.2.0indirect
npmnormalize-registry-metadata^1.1.2indirect
npmrequest^2.80.0indirect
npmtap^16.3.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.