Public record
Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 01:51 UTC

Affolder-Creative / davvy

Privacy-first, self-hosted CalDAV/CardDAV with shared calendars, contacts, and a web dashboard.

PHP · JavaScriptCustom license★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined

Affolder-Creative/davvy holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (31/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Affolder CreativeOrganization
0 followers1 public reposince Jul 2026

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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 866 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year866
human_commit_share0.67
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 31 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~9.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv3.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases9.4
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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

31At Risk · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
24.5/30PR acceptance — 94/115 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs94
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs21
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of Affolder-Creative
2.3/25Track record — 1 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginAffolder-Creative
public_repos1
account_age_days12

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://affolder-creative.github.io/davvy
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 17 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaddress-book, caldav, caldav-server, calendar, carddav, carddav-server, contacts, dav, docker, laravel, postgresql, privacy-first, react, sabredav, self-hosted, shared-calendar, shared-contacts
has_wikino
homepagehttps://affolder-creative.github.io/davvy
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-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 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 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 51 of 67 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.761
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,571
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 33 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilescomposer.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.33
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
54.3/55Manageable file sizes — 5/420 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePHP
largest_source_bytes109,229
source_files_sampled420
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
866commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, Packagistpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch packagist package 'davvy/app' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 01:51 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 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 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1Vulnerabilities9 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Packagistlaravel-notification-channels/webpush^11.0composer.json
Packagistlaravel/framework^13.2composer.json
Packagistlaravel/tinker^3.0composer.json
Packagistleague/flysystem^3.26composer.json
Packagistleague/flysystem-aws-s3-v3^3.26composer.json
Packagistsabre/dav^4.6composer.json
npmaxios^1.18.1package.json
npmi18next^26.3.6package.json
npmqrcode.react^4.2.0package.json
npmreact^19.2.8package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.8package.json
npmreact-easy-crop^5.5.7package.json
npmreact-i18next^17.0.11package.json
npmreact-router-dom^7.18.1package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.