Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 05:22 UTC

parhumm / jaan-to

Work, simplified. Results, reliable.

JavaScript · ShellCustom license★ 25 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗

parhumm/jaan-to holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Security (28/100). It was last updated 4 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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Parhum KhoshbakhtPersonal account

38 followers27 public repossince Jul 2011Statnive

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
8.3/36	Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 681 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	681
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	12

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~22.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	16
latest_release_tag	v7.8.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	4
mean_days_between_releases	22.3

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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

22At Risk

How it's scored

22.4/60	Stars — 25 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	25
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

71Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

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)

16Critical

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
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

55Moderate

How it's scored

17.8/42	Issue resolution — 42% of issues closed
30/30	PR acceptance — 121/121 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	121
open_issues	38
closed_issues	28
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.424
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25	Owner reach — 38 followers of parhumm
22.5/25	Track record — 27 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	38
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	parhumm
public_repos	27
account_age_days	5,519

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	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	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

28At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

28At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesIran

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
1.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 83 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	28
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	38

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

75Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md, adapters/codex/AGENTS.md, adapters/codex/skillpack/runtime/AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.99
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md, adapters/codex/AGENTS.md, adapters/codex/skillpack/runtime/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,137

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

56Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — website/docs/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 43 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	website/docs/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.43
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

78Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (website/docs/tsconfig.json)
50.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 18/243 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	513,389
source_files_sampled	243
oversized_source_files	18

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

25GitHub stars

1contributors

681commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

16releases

1bus factor

38open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10

3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 05:22 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	18 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
3	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	83 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.