Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 15:00 UTC

Brhiza / mingyu

八字、紫微、星盘、六爻、梅花、奇门、大六壬、小六壬、塔罗、雷诺曼、灵签、择日一站式玄学算命占卜工具包,输出结构化提示词与数据。提供公开 API、MCP Server 与 skill。

TypeScriptAGPL-3.0★ 405 stars⑂ 114 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfaceLibraryMobile applicationCommand-line toolMCP serverhow this is determined

Brhiza/mingyu holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BrhizaPersonal account
7 followers29 public repossince Sep 2018

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,049 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,049
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagandroid-v1.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases1.8

Community & Adoption

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

57Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.3/60Stars — 405 stars
17.1/25Forks — 114 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks114
stars405
watchers1
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
50.5/80Monthly downloads — 6,154 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmingyu-mcp, mingyu-core
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads6,154
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?

52Moderate · 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
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.998
How it's scored
38/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance — 229/278 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs229
open_issues2
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d16
prs_decided_7d50
prs_merged_30d25
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.905
closed_unmerged_prs49
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.5/25Owner reach — 7 followers of Brhiza
22.8/25Track record — 29 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers7
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginBrhiza
public_repos29
account_age_days2,906
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 38 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmingyu-mcp, mingyu-core
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://aov.cc
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, bazi, da-liuren, divination, fortune-telling, liuyao, mcp, mcp-server, meihua-yishu, prompt-engineering, qimen-dunjia, tarot, ziwei, suanming, lingqian, xiao-liu-ren, xingpan, zeri, lenormand
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://aov.cc
docs_sitehttps://aov.cc
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 4 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 0/5 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
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 32 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.3

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
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
2.1/40Legible commit history — 4 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.04
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — android/app/build.gradle, android/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.js
11/11Static type checking — mcp/tsconfig.json, packages/core/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmcp/tsconfig.json, packages/core/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsandroid/app/build.gradle, android/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
51.9/55Manageable file sizes — 62/1,114 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes968,055
source_files_sampled1,114
oversized_source_files62

Key facts

405GitHub stars
3contributors
1,049commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Maven, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-21: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 405 stars today.
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index npm:mingyu-mcp@0.3.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 199 ★ / 114 ⇿
199Stars
114Forks
8Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-21. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

04080120160200199113202026-042026-062026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 15:00 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests4 out of 4 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 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities32 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@capacitor/android8.5.0package.json
npm@capacitor/core8.5.0package.json
npmcaelus0.24.1package.json
npmiztro^2.5.8package.json
npmmarked^16.4.2package.json
npmmingyu-coreworkspace:*package.json
npmreact^19.1.1package.json
npmreact-dom^19.1.1package.json
npmreact-router-dom^7.18.2package.json
npmtyme4ts^1.3.3package.json
npm@soul-atelier/xuankong0.2.1packages/core/package.json
npmastronomy-engine2.1.19packages/core/package.json
npmtyme4ts^1.3.3packages/core/package.json
npmcaelus0.24.1packages/core/package.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

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 — npm.