Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 02:40 UTC

EasyIME / PIME

Develop input methods for Windows easily with Python and node.js

C++ · PythonCustom license★ 1,473 stars⑂ 242 forkssince Aug 2014View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

EasyIME/PIME holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Vitality (48/100). It was last updated 55 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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

Ownership

EasyIMEOrganization

35 followers7 public repossince Aug 2014

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?

48Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

53Moderate

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 55 days ago
11.1/36	Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18	Commit volume — 43 commits in the last year
9/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

commits_last_year	43
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	55
active_weeks_last_year	16

Release discipline

40Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 28 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,337 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~249.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	28
latest_release_tag	v1.3.0-stable
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,337
mean_days_between_releases	249.4

Community & Adoption

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

64Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

82Excellent

How it's scored

51.4/60	Stars — 1,473 stars
19.9/25	Forks — 242 forks
10.6/15	Watchers — 83 watchers

Inputs used

forks	242
stars	1,473
watchers	83
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

44Weak

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	ci.appveyor.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 45% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 30 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	30
top_contributor_share	0.448

Issue & PR responsiveness

59Moderate

How it's scored

21.2/42	Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
25.9/30	PR acceptance — 140/162 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

merged_prs	140
open_issues	352
closed_issues	357
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.504
closed_unmerged_prs	22
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
11.2/25	Owner reach — 35 followers of EasyIME
18.6/25	Track record — 7 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	35
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	EasyIME
public_repos	7
account_age_days	4,405

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ime, chinese, windows-10, tsf
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak

How it's scored

0/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
6.8/7.5	Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	122
unassessed_packages	5
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 122 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

23At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.9/40	Legible commit history — 43 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.43
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — node/node_modules/debug/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — python/python3/tornado/py.typed
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock, yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	node/node_modules/debug/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	python/python3/tornado/py.typed
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml, go-backend/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

97Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
51.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 17/298 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C++
largest_source_bytes	953,436
source_files_sampled	298
oversized_source_files	17

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,473GitHub stars

30contributors

43commits, last 12 months

55days since last push

28releases

2bus factor

352open issues

crates.io, Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/EasyIME/pime-go' from its registry
Could not fetch npm package 'nime-server' from its registry
Could not fetch crates package 'pimelauncher' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 242 ⇿

0Stars

242Forks

28Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 1Patch 4

Each point covers 11 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10

4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 02:39 UTC

0	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8	CI-Tests	7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3	Code-Review	Found 5/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10	Contributors	project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
9	Maintained	10 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 11

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
crates.io	tokio	`1`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	uuid	`1`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde	`1`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	serde_json	`1`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	futures	`0.3`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tokio-util	`0.7`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	windows	`0.52`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tracing	`0.1`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
crates.io	tracing-subscriber	`0.3`	PIMELauncher/Cargo.toml
npm	debug	`^2.6.9`	node/package.json
npm	nime	`0.5.0`	node/package.json

All dependencies 127

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 114 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	futures	`0.3.32`	direct
crates.io	serde	`1.0.228`	direct
crates.io	serde_json	`1.0.149`	direct
crates.io	tokio	`1.52.1`	direct
crates.io	tokio-util	`0.7.18`	direct
crates.io	tracing	`0.1.44`	direct
crates.io	tracing-subscriber	`0.3.23`	direct
crates.io	uuid	`1.23.1`	direct
crates.io	windows	`0.52.0`	direct
npm	debug	`2.6.9`	direct
npm	debug	`^2.2.0`	direct
npm	nime	`0.5.0`	direct
npm	nime	`^0.2.0`	direct
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.102`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	bumpalo	`3.20.2`	indirect
crates.io	bytes	`1.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.14`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	foldhash	`0.1.5`	indirect
crates.io	futures-channel	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-executor	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-io	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-macro	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-sink	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-task	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-util	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.15.5`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.17.0`	indirect
crates.io	heck	`0.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	id-arena	`2.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.14.0`	indirect
crates.io	itoa	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	js-sys	`0.3.95`	indirect
crates.io	lazy_static	`1.5.0`	indirect
crates.io	leb128fmt	`0.1.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.186`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.12.1`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.8.0`	indirect
crates.io	mio	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	nu-ansi-term	`0.50.3`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.4`	indirect
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.17`	indirect
crates.io	prettyplease	`0.2.37`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.45`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`6.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.1.4`	indirect
crates.io	rustversion	`1.0.22`	indirect
crates.io	semver	`1.0.28`	indirect
crates.io	serde_core	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	serde_derive	`1.0.228`	indirect
crates.io	sharded-slab	`0.1.7`	indirect
crates.io	signal-hook-registry	`1.4.8`	indirect
crates.io	slab	`0.4.12`	indirect
crates.io	smallvec	`1.15.1`	indirect
crates.io	socket2	`0.6.3`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.117`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`3.27.0`	indirect
crates.io	thread_local	`1.1.9`	indirect
crates.io	tokio-macros	`2.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	tokio-stream	`0.1.18`	indirect
crates.io	tokio-test	`0.4.5`	indirect
crates.io	tracing-attributes	`0.1.31`	indirect
crates.io	tracing-core	`0.1.36`	indirect
crates.io	tracing-log	`0.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-xid	`0.2.6`	indirect
crates.io	valuable	`0.1.1`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.11.1+wasi-snapshot-preview1`	indirect
crates.io	wasip2	`1.0.3+wasi-0.2.9`	indirect
crates.io	wasip3	`0.4.0+wasi-0.3.0-rc-2026-01-06`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen	`0.2.118`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro	`0.2.118`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-macro-support	`0.2.118`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-bindgen-shared	`0.2.118`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-encoder	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wasm-metadata	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wasmparser	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-core	`0.52.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen	`0.57.1`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-core	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rust	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rust-macro	`0.51.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-component	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	wit-parser	`0.244.0`	indirect
crates.io	zmij	`1.0.21`	indirect
npm	commitplease	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	cross-env	`^1.0.8`	indirect
npm	emojione	`^2.2.5`	indirect
npm	eslint-config-jquery	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	glob	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	grunt	`1.5.3`	indirect
npm	grunt-bowercopy	`1.2.5`	indirect
npm	grunt-cli	`1.4.3`	indirect
npm	grunt-compare-size	`0.4.2`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-concat	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-csslint	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-qunit	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-requirejs	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-contrib-uglify	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	grunt-eslint	`23.0.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-git-authors	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	grunt-html	`14.5.0`	indirect
npm	jquery	`>=1.8.0 <4.0.0`	indirect
npm	load-grunt-tasks	`5.1.0`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	rimraf	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	stdio	`0.2.7`	indirect
npm	testswarm	`1.1.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 122 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
anyhow	`1.0.102`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.0.103`

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records