Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 20:22 UTC

Dhairya3391 / kari

Kari just a tui for getting media from providers and playing it in your media player with nice to have features.

GoMIT★ 46 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindTerminal interfacehow this is determined

Dhairya3391/kari holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (74/100) and lowest on Security (27/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DhairyaPersonal account
32 followers63 public repossince Jun 2020

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?

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
16.5/18Commit volume67 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year67
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases42 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~2.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagv4.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.6

Community & Adoption

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

38Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.8/60Stars46 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars46
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

40Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.986
How it's scored
37.6/42Issue resolution90% of issues closed
10/30PR acceptance1/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues2
closed_issues17
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.895
closed_unmerged_prs2
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.9/25Owner reach32 followers of Dhairya3391
25/25Track record63 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginDhairya3391
public_repos63
account_age_days2,277
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanilist, anime, cartoons, cli, go, golang, movies, mpv, streaming, terminal, trakt, tui, web-scraping, linux, macos, termux, tv, windows, hls, scraper
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?

27At Risk · 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
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
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
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate2.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history67 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.931
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,997
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 72
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/112 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes19,341
source_files_sampled112
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

46GitHub stars
2contributors
67commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
42releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.7 / 10
2.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 20:21 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 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
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubblesv0.21.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubbleteav1.3.10go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttpv0.7.8go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.20.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.37.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/BourgeoisBear/rastermv1.1.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/muesli/termenvv0.16.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.42.0go.mod
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.