Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 00:00 UTC

CesarBianchi / JellyfinEasyMetadataManager

Jellyfin Easy Metadata Manager (Also called as "JEMM") is a free and open-source tool created to help heavy users of Jellyfin Project to manage their instances. The main purpose of JEMM is to make it easier to fill in the metadata fields of library items and folders.

JavaGPL-2.0★ 107 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗
#jellyfin#jellyfin-client#jellyfin-metadata-manager#jellyfin-easy-metadata-manager#jemm

CesarBianchi/JellyfinEasyMetadataManager holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (74/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (36/100). It was last updated 4 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

Cesar BianchiPersonal account
4 followers3 public repossince Oct 2018

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

74Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18Commit volume — 84 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year84
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

84Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~140 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv1.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases140
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?

47Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

44Weak
How it's scored
32.9/60Stars — 107 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars107
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

36Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.996

Issue & PR responsiveness

63Moderate
How it's scored
36.2/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
18.8/30PR acceptance — 27/43 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs27
open_issues4
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.862
closed_unmerged_prs16
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

39Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of CesarBianchi
16.4/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginCesarBianchi
public_repos3
account_age_days2,845
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

44Weak
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjellyfin, jellyfin-client, jellyfin-metadata-manager, jellyfin-easy-metadata-manager, jemm
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

70Good
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 21 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

39Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
53.1/55Manageable file sizes — 5/148 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes188,096
source_files_sampled148
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

107GitHub stars
2contributors
84commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch maven package 'com.lariflix:jemm' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 23:59 UTC

8Binary-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-Tests5 out of 5 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 0/7 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavendev.javatools:json-utils1.0.1pom.xml
Mavencom.googlecode:google-api-translate-java0.92pom.xml
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-native-core_34.1.0-M3pom.xml
Mavencom.googlecode.json-simple:json-simple1.1pom.xml
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient4.5.14pom.xml
Mavencom.formdev:flatlaf3.2.5pom.xml
Mavencommons-codec:commons-codec1.16.0pom.xml
Mavencom.formdev:flatlaf-intellij-themes3.2.5pom.xml
Mavennet.sf.jasperreports:jasperreports7.0.7pom.xml
Mavencommons-io:commons-io2.18.0pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations2.22pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.22.1pom.xml
Mavencommons-beanutils:commons-beanutils1.11.0pom.xml
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 49 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations2.22direct
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.22.1direct
Mavencom.formdev:flatlaf3.2.5direct
Mavencom.formdev:flatlaf-intellij-themes3.2.5direct
Mavencom.googlecode.json-simple:json-simple1.1direct
Mavencom.googlecode:google-api-translate-java0.92direct
Mavencommons-beanutils:commons-beanutils1.11.0direct
Mavencommons-codec:commons-codec1.16.0direct
Mavencommons-io:commons-io2.18.0direct
Mavendev.javatools:json-utils1.0.1direct
Mavennet.sf.jasperreports:jasperreports7.0.7direct
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient4.5.14direct
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-native-core_34.1.0-M3direct
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.22.1indirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-xml2.18.6indirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-yaml2.22.1indirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.woodstox:woodstox-core7.0.0indirect
Mavencommons-collections:commons-collections3.2.2indirect
Mavencommons-logging:commons-logging1.2indirect
Mavendev.javatools:map-utils1.0.1indirect
Mavennet.bytebuddy:byte-buddy1.10.20indirect
Mavennet.bytebuddy:byte-buddy-agent1.10.20indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-beanutils22.0.0-M2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-collections44.5.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-lang33.20.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore4.4.16indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-anim1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-awt-util1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-bridge1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-constants1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-css1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-dom1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-ext1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-gvt1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-i18n1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-parser1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-script1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-shared-resources1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-svg-dom1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-util1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:batik-xml1.19indirect
Mavenorg.apache.xmlgraphics:xmlgraphics-commons2.11indirect
Mavenorg.apiguardian:apiguardian-api1.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.woodstox:stax2-api4.2.2indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-ast_34.1.0-M3indirect
Mavenorg.jspecify:jspecify1.0.0indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-params6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-commons6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-engine6.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.mockito:mockito-core3.9.0indirect
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis3.2indirect
Mavenorg.opentest4j:opentest4j1.3.0indirect
Mavenorg.projectlombok:lombok1.18.46indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-library2.13.10indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala3-library_33.2.2indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-api2.1.0-alpha1indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-simple2.1.0-alpha1indirect
Mavenorg.yaml:snakeyaml2.5indirect
Mavenxml-apis:xml-apis-ext1.3.04indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with CesarBianchi/JellyfinEasyMetadataManager. Read them side by side →

54hacel/jfshA terminal-based client for JellyfinModerate69jarnedemeulemeester/findroidThird-party native Jellyfin Android appGood97jellyfin/jellyfinThe Free Software Media System - Server Backend & APIExceptional90jellyfin/jellyfin-iosJellyfin for iOSExcellent89zoriya/KyooA portable and vast media library solution.Excellent88jellyfin/jellyfin-sdk-typescriptTypeScript SDK for JellyfinExcellent

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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