# react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer — health index 42/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the At risk 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/react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/r/react-pdf-kit/react-pdf-viewer.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-17
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 27/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 27/100 | Critical |
| Security | 16% | 1/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 1/100 | Critical |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | React PDF Kit is a feature-rich React PDF Viewer component. Powered by PDF.js, it offers seamless integration with PDF documents. With customizable toolbars, search, and smooth navigation, it’s designed to deliver a professional PDF viewing experience. |
| Homepage | https://www.react-pdf-kit.dev |
| Primary language | CSS |
| Stars | 32 |
| Forks | 4 |
| Created | 2024-11-21 |
| Last push | 2026-07-14 |
| Latest release | v2.7.3 |
| Commits (last year) | 56 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | javascript, nextjs, pdf-viewer-react, react, react-pdf, react-pdf-viewer, reactjs, typescript, pdf-viewer, pdfjs, pdfjs-dist, react-pdf-kit |

## Vitality — 88/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 3 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 20.1 / 36 | 29/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 15.8 / 18 | 56 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 27 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 3 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~12.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 27/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 28/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 24.2 / 60 | 32 stars |
| Forks | partial | 4 / 25 | 4 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | not met | 0 / 22.5 | no license file detected |
| 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 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 53/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 24/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 4.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 79% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 8.1 / 13.5 | 6 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 93/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 40.7 / 46.8 | 87% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 38.2 / 38.2 | 9/9 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 49/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 5 / 25 | 4 followers of react-pdf-kit |
| Track record | partial | 13.6 / 25 | 25 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 27/100 (Critical)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 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 | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 65/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.react-pdf-kit.dev |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 12 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 1/100 (Critical)

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | no dependency manifests — not applicable |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

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

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | CSS without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | excluded | 0 / 55 | no source files detected |

## Collection warnings

- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

## 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