# patrickhulce/third-party-web — health index 19/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository patrickhulce/third-party-web by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/patrickhulce/third-party-web
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/patrickhulce/third-party-web
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/patrickhulce/third-party-web/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/p/patrickhulce/third-party-web.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 72/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 69/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 21/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 47/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Data on third party entities and their impact on the web. |
| Classification | library, web-ui |
| Homepage | https://www.thirdpartyweb.today/ |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 1,107 |
| Forks | 110 |
| Created | 2018-07-14 |
| Last push | 2026-07-09 |
| Latest release | v0.29.2 |
| Commits (last year) | 12 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | web, httparchive, javascript, analysis, third-party-javascript |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | third-party-web | 0.29.2 | 19,188,491 |

## Vitality — 53/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 33/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 18 / 36 | last push 34 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 4.8 / 36 | 7/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 10 / 18 | 12 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 82/100 (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 | 64 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 27 / 36 | latest release 91 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~59.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 100 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 72/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 49.4 / 60 | 1,107 stars |
| Forks | partial | 17 / 25 | 110 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.5 / 15 | 35 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 19,188,491 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 69/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 43/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 10.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 53% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 58 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 48 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 76/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 29.7 / 42 | 71% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 27 / 30 | 179/199 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 9 / 15 | Found 20/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (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 | partial | 19.6 / 25 | 528 followers of patrickhulce |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 163 public repos, account ~13 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 91 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 64 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 61/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 4 / 20 | 6 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.thirdpartyweb.today/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 5 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 21/100 (At Risk)

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 — 17/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | 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 |
| CI-Tests | partial | 0.5 / 2.5 | 6 out of 23 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | Found 20/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 48 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 296 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 37/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2759 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 | partial | 5.9 / 35 | 5 affected: lodash 4.17.11 (critical 9.1), gatsby-transformer-remark 2.3.8 (high 8.1), lodash 4.17.21 (high 8.1), +2 more |
| 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 | partial | 21.7 / 40 | 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2590 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 35/100 (Weak)

1 resolved dependency(ies) resolve to a version the registry still serves and the OpenSSF corpus reports as malicious. Direct and indirect are treated alike: an install-time payload runs at any depth in the graph. A report here concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, which may have resolved it unknowingly.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | partial | 35 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious: fsevents 1.2.7 |

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

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 — 47/100 (Weak)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 96 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### 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 | 53.7 / 55 | 1/41 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 299 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity

## 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