Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-11 16:45 UTC

AsterleedsGuild0 / MaaStarResonance

基于 MaaFw 的 星痕共鸣小助手

PythonAGPL-3.0★ 18 stars⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined

AsterleedsGuild0/MaaStarResonance holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

2 followers10 public repossince Mar 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?

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 18 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume320 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year320
human_commit_share0.74
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases28 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 24 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~13.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count28
latest_release_tagv0.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release24
mean_days_between_releases13.2

Community & Adoption

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

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars18 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars18
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 48% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.479
How it's scored
30/42Issue resolution71% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance44/45 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues14
closed_issues35
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.714
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of AsterleedsGuild0
8.3/25Track record10 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginAsterleedsGuild0
public_repos10
account_age_days136
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://maa-star-resonance.ayusummer233.top/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmaa, maafw, star-resonance, starresonance
has_wikino
homepagehttps://maa-star-resonance.ayusummer233.top/
docs_sitehttps://maa-star-resonance.ayusummer233.top/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities60 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/python..instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
19.5/40Legible commit history27 of 74 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.365
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/python..instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,132
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance19 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.19
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/61 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes38,234
source_files_sampled61
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
4contributors
320commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
28releases
2bus factor
14open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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 · 2026-08-11 16:44 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests7 out of 7 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 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained15 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Vulnerabilities60 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 15
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@docusaurus/core^3.10.0package.json
npm@docusaurus/faster^3.10.0package.json
npm@docusaurus/preset-classic^3.10.0package.json
npm@mdx-js/react^3.0.0package.json
npmclsx^2.0.0package.json
npmprism-react-renderer^2.3.0package.json
npmreact^19.0.0package.json
npmreact-dom^19.0.0package.json
PyPIloguru>=0.7.3pyproject.toml
PyPImaafw==5.12.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpip>=25.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpre-commit>=4.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrapidfuzz>=3.14.3pyproject.toml
PyPItoml>=0.10.2pyproject.toml
PyPItzdata>=2025.2pyproject.toml
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

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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