# webpack/loader-runner — health index 25/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository webpack/loader-runner by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 25 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/webpack/loader-runner
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/webpack/loader-runner
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/webpack/loader-runner/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/w/webpack/loader-runner.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 49/100 | At risk |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 82/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 70/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 68/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 47/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 44/100 | At risk |

Abandonment Policy applies a 40% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a ceiling of 29.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Runs (webpack) loaders |
| Primary language | JavaScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 307 |
| Forks | 64 |
| Created | 2016-01-03 |
| Last push | 2026-05-15 |
| Latest release | v4.3.2 |
| Commits (last year) | 12 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Archived | yes — the repository is no longer maintained on GitHub |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | loader-runner | 4.3.2 | 181,682,460 |

## Vitality — 49/100 (At risk)

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

### Development activity — 31/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 18 / 36 | last push 68 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.8 / 36 | 4/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 10 / 18 | 12 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project is archived |

### Release discipline — 76/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 7 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 89 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 5.4 / 27 | a release every ~442.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 40 / 100 | the repository is archived on GitHub |

## Community & Adoption — 82/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 40.3 / 60 | 307 stars |
| Forks | partial | 15 / 25 | 64 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.3 / 15 | 10 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 | — |

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | met | 80 / 80 | 181,682,460 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 70/100 (Good)

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) — 42/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 58% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 14 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 14 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | met | 46.8 / 46.8 | 100% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24 / 38.2 | 37/59 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 1.5 / 15 | Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 22.4 / 25 | 1,308 followers of webpack |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 86 public repos, account ~13 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 89 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 16 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 68/100 (Moderate)

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

### Engineering practices — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 10 / 20 | 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 47/100 (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 — 34/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| 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 | partial | 1.2 / 2.5 | 8 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project is archived |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 0.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | 14 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 532 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 | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 75/100 (Good)

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 | partial | 75 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1) |

## AI Readiness — 44/100 (At risk)

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 — 27/100 (Critical)

| 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 | partial | 27.2 / 40 | 49 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | JavaScript without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/29 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## 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