# supabase/supabase-js — health index 89/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository supabase/supabase-js by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/supabase/supabase-js
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/supabase/supabase-js
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/supabase/supabase-js/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/s/supabase/supabase-js.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-16
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 93/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 70/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 77/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | An isomorphic Javascript client for Supabase. Query your Supabase database, subscribe to realtime events, upload and download files, browse typescript examples, invoke postgres functions via rpc, invoke supabase edge functions, query pgvector. |
| Homepage | https://supabase.com |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 4,504 |
| Forks | 694 |
| Created | 2020-05-15 |
| Last push | 2026-07-15 |
| Latest release | v2.110.6 |
| Commits (last year) | 648 |
| Bus factor | 7 |
| Topics | client-library, database, isomorphic, javascript, js, mit-license, node-js, nuxt, orm, postgres, postgresql, postgrest, supabase, svelte, ts, typescript |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | test-tracing | — | — |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 648 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (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 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~0.6 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### 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 — 93/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 93/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 59.3 / 60 | 4,504 stars |
| Forks | partial | 23.7 / 25 | 694 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 9.9 / 15 | 62 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 86/100 (Excellent)

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) — 94/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 51.3 / 54 | 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 15% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.6 / 46.8 | 98% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 29.8 / 38.2 | 1030/1322 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 10,870 followers of supabase |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 159 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Publish recency. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | excluded | 0 / 35 | no data |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 0 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 90/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 16 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://supabase.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 16 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 70/100 (Good)

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 — 70/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 14 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |
| SAST | partial | 4 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 8 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 43 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 77/100 (Good)

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 — 75/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .claude/CLAUDE.md, .cursor/.cursorrules, AGENTS.md, packages/core/auth-js/AGENTS.md, packages/core/functions-js/AGENTS.md, packages/core/postgrest-js/AGENTS.md, packages/core/realtime-js/AGENTS.md, packages/core/storage-js/AGENTS.md, packages/core/supabase-js/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 76/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.js, eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | packages/core/auth-js/example/react/tsconfig.json, packages/core/auth-js/tsconfig.json, packages/core/functions-js/tsconfig.json, packages/core/postgrest-js/tsconfig.json, packages/core/realtime-js/example/tsconfig.json, packages/core/realtime-js/tsconfig.json, packages/core/storage-js/tsconfig.json, packages/core/supabase-js/test/integration/expo/tsconfig.json, packages/core/supabase-js/test/integration/next/tsconfig.json, packages/core/supabase-js/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tracing/tsconfig.json, test-tracing/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 9 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.5 / 55 | 3/343 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example |

## 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