Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 19:12 UTC

vimaec / vim-webgl-viewer

An easy to use online 3D model viewer based on Three.JS.

TypeScriptMIT★ 79 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Jul 2018archivedView on GitHub ↗

vimaec/vim-webgl-viewer holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100) and lowest on Vitality (22/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 48 is calibrated to 47 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VIMOrganization · verified domain
41 followers56 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmvim-webgl-viewer2.0.262,165703635 days ago3dviewerthree.jsmodelaecvimloaderwebgl

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

22At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 635 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push635
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases9 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 676 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~74 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv2.0.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release676
mean_days_between_releases74

Community & Adoption

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

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.7/60Stars79 stars
9.6/25Forks15 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks15
stars79
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
44.5/80Monthly downloads2,165 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesvim-webgl-viewer
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads2,165
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 94% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.943
How it's scored
40.4/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
26.4/30PR acceptance102/116 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs102
open_issues5
closed_issues129
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.963
closed_unmerged_prs14
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.7/25Owner reach41 followers of vimaec
24.8/25Track record56 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers41
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginvimaec
public_repos56
account_age_days2,759
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 635 days ago
20/20Version history703 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesvim-webgl-viewer
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish635

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.cjs, .eslintrc.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswebgl, gltf, 3d, aec, vim, threejs, viewer
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages11
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:vim-webgl-viewer@2.0.26 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 11 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.7/40Legible commit history7 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.07
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.cjs, .eslintrc.json
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes1/90 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes387,848
source_files_sampled90
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

79GitHub stars
6contributors
0commits, last 12 months
635days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
5open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿
0Stars
15Forks
6Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

03581013151412019-102022-012024-05
Major 1Minor 0Patch 5

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 19:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@types/three^0.143.0package.json
npmdeepmerge^4.2.2package.json
npmis-plain-object^5.0.0package.json
npmste-events^3.0.7package.json
npmste-signals^3.0.9package.json
npmste-simple-events^3.0.7package.json
npmthree0.143.0package.json
npmvim-format1.0.14package.json
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 17 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@types/three^0.143.0direct
npmdeepmerge^4.2.2direct
npmis-plain-object^5.0.0direct
npmste-events^3.0.7direct
npmste-signals^3.0.9direct
npmste-simple-events^3.0.7direct
npmthree0.143.0direct
npmvim-format1.0.14direct
npm@types/node^18.11.11indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin^5.45.1indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser^5.45.1indirect
npmeslint^8.29.0indirect
npmeslint-config-prettier^8.5.0indirect
npmeslint-config-standard^17.0.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-import^2.26.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-node^11.1.0indirect
npmeslint-plugin-prettier^4.2.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-promise^6.1.1indirect
npmhttp-server^14indirect
npmopener^1.5.2indirect
npmprettier^2.8.0indirect
npmtypedoc^0.23.21indirect
npmtypedoc-plugin-merge-modules^4.0.1indirect
npmtypescript^4.9.3indirect
npmvite^3.2.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:vim-webgl-viewer@2.0.26 pulls in 11 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 statisticsnpm.