Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-06 17:21 UTC

7mind / idealingua-v1

IdeaLingua RPC for Scala, TypeScript, C#

Scala · C#BSD-2-Clause★ 21 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗

7mind/idealingua-v1 holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Septimal MindOrganization · verified domain
25 followers73 public repossince Jan 2018

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 113 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year113
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 40 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 138 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~37.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv1.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release138
mean_days_between_releases37.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

39Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
21.1/60Stars — 21 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars21
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 42% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.423
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
18.1/30PR acceptance — 331/548 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs331
open_issues62
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs217
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
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of 7mind
25/25Track record — 73 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_login7mind
public_repos73
account_age_days3,187

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://izumi.7mind.io/idealingua
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsizumi, idealingua, scala, scalajs, pper, productivity, idl, rpc, api, json, generative, zio, http4s, cats-effect, typescript, csharp, go, compiler, transpiler
has_wikino
homepagehttps://izumi.7mind.io/idealingua
docs_sitehttps://izumi.7mind.io/idealingua
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
3.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages59
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severitymoderate 1, low 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 59 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.1/40Legible commit history — 32 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.32
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-runtime-rpc-csharp/src/main/nuget/solution/Izumi.RPC.Runtime.CS.IRT/Izumi.RPC.Runtime.CS.IRT.csproj, idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-test-harness/src/main/csharp/Driver.csproj, regression-harness/templates/csharp/Driver.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-runtime-rpc-typescript/src/npmjs/tsconfig.json, idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-test-harness/src/main/typescript/tsconfig.json, regression-harness/templates/typescript/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 7 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsidealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-runtime-rpc-typescript/src/npmjs/tsconfig.json, idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-test-harness/src/main/typescript/tsconfig.json, regression-harness/templates/typescript/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.07
toolchain_manifestsidealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-runtime-rpc-csharp/src/main/nuget/solution/Izumi.RPC.Runtime.CS.IRT/Izumi.RPC.Runtime.CS.IRT.csproj, idealingua-v1/idealingua-v1-test-harness/src/main/csharp/Driver.csproj, regression-harness/templates/csharp/Driver.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Scala (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 6/540 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageScala
largest_source_bytes154,713
source_files_sampled540
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

21GitHub stars
8contributors
113commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
40releases
2bus factor
62open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks
37Releases

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.

12345512020-022023-032026-04
Major 0Minor 3Patch 30

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-06 17:20 UTC

5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained4 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openharmony-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.27.7indirect
npm@types/node22.19.17indirect
npm@types/node^22.7.6indirect
npm@types/websocket1.0.10indirect
npm@types/websocket^1.0.1indirect
npm@types/websocket^1.0.10indirect
npmbufferutil4.1.0indirect
npmd1.0.2indirect
npmdebug2.6.9indirect
npmes5-ext0.10.64indirect
npmes6-iterator2.0.3indirect
npmes6-symbol3.1.4indirect
npmesbuild0.27.7indirect
npmesniff2.0.1indirect
npmevent-emitter0.3.5indirect
npmext1.7.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmget-tsconfig4.14.0indirect
npmis-typedarray1.0.0indirect
npmmoment2.30.1indirect
npmmoment^2.29.1indirect
npmmoment^2.29.4indirect
npmms2.0.0indirect
npmnext-tick1.1.0indirect
npmnode-gyp-build4.8.4indirect
npmresolve-pkg-maps1.0.0indirect
npmtsx4.21.0indirect
npmtsx^4.20.0indirect
npmtype2.7.3indirect
npmtypedarray-to-buffer3.1.5indirect
npmtypescript5.9.3indirect
npmtypescript^5.9.3indirect
npmundici-types6.21.0indirect
npmutf-8-validate5.0.10indirect
npmwebsocket1.0.35indirect
npmwebsocket^1.0.32indirect
npmwebsocket^1.0.34indirect
npmyaeti0.0.6indirect
NuGetNewtonsoft.Json13.0.3indirect
NuGetNUnit3.11.0indirect
NuGetUnity3D.UnityEngine2018.1.6-f1indirect
NuGetUnity3D.UnityEngine.Networking2018.1.6-f1indirect
NuGetWebSocketSharp1.0.3-rc11indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 59 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
moment2.30.1indirectmoderate12.31.0
esbuild0.27.7indirectlow10.28.1

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.