Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 18:29 UTC

sanity-io / eventsource

JavaScript · TypeScriptMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2022View on GitHub ↗

sanity-io/eventsource holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Security (71/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (44/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

62
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.

62
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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SanityOrganization · verified domain
1,393 followers366 public repossince Feb 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@sanity/eventsource5.0.45,204,90656743 days agosanitycmsheadlessrealtimecontenteventsourcepolyfill

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year8
human_commit_share0.438
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 43 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~201.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv5.0.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release43
mean_days_between_releases201.8

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
80/80Monthly downloads — 5,204,906 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@sanity/eventsource
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,204,906
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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 66% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 16 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.656
How it's scored
14/42Issue resolution — 33% of issues closed
17.5/30PR acceptance — 46/79 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs46
open_issues2
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.333
closed_unmerged_prs33
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
22.6/25Owner reach — 1,393 followers of sanity-io
25/25Track record — 366 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,393
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginsanity-io
public_repos366
account_age_days3,850

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 43 days ago
20/20Version history — 567 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@sanity/eventsource
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish43

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — package.json ("prettier")
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.sanity.io/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://www.sanity.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 16 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
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.4

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:@sanity/eventsource@5.0.4 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 packages. 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 30 of 32 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.938
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — package.json ("prettier")
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2.7/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 73 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 31 of the last 73 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.014
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.425
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes101
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
5contributors
8commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
2open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 18:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2CI-Tests6 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 16 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@types/event-source-polyfill1.0.5package.json
npm@types/eventsource1.1.15package.json
npmevent-source-polyfill1.0.31package.json
npmeventsource2.0.2package.json
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@types/event-source-polyfill1.0.5direct
npm@types/eventsource1.1.15direct
npmevent-source-polyfill1.0.31direct
npmeventsource2.0.2direct
npm@nodelib/fs.scandir2.1.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.stat2.0.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.walk1.2.8indirect
npm@pkgr/core0.1.1indirect
npmbraces3.0.2indirect
npmdetect-indent7.0.1indirect
npmdetect-newline4.0.0indirect
npmdir-glob3.0.1indirect
npmfast-glob3.2.12indirect
npmfastq1.15.0indirect
npmfill-range7.0.1indirect
npmget-stdin9.0.0indirect
npmgit-hooks-list3.1.0indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmglobby13.1.4indirect
npmignore5.2.4indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmis-plain-obj4.1.0indirect
npmmerge21.4.1indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.5indirect
npmpath-type4.0.0indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.1indirect
npmprettier3.2.5indirect
npmprettier-plugin-packagejson2.4.12indirect
npmqueue-microtask1.2.3indirect
npmreusify1.0.4indirect
npmrun-parallel1.2.0indirect
npmslash4.0.0indirect
npmsort-object-keys1.1.3indirect
npmsort-package-json2.8.0indirect
npmsynckit0.9.0indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmtslib2.6.2indirect
npmtypescript5.4.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@sanity/eventsource@5.0.4 pulls in 4 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.