Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 11:31 UTC

Fast-Editor / Lynkr

Streamline your workflow with Lynkr, a CLI tool that acts as an HTTP proxy for efficient code interactions using Claude Code CLI.

JavaScript · RustApache-2.0★ 550 stars⑂ 61 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolNetwork servicehow this is determined

Fast-Editor/Lynkr holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (27/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Fast-EditorOrganization
4 followers6 public repossince Dec 2025

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 243 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year243
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 2 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 83 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~201.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv9.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release83
mean_days_between_releases201.2

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.4/60Stars — 550 stars
14.8/25Forks — 61 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks61
stars550
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code 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_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
43.9/80Monthly downloads — 1,969 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageslynkr
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,969
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?

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.395
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
24.3/30PR acceptance — 60/74 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs60
open_issues3
closed_issues24
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d12
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs14
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of Fast-Editor
7.6/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginFast-Editor
public_repos6
account_age_days273

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 73 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslynkr
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.cjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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://fast-editor.github.io/Lynkr/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsclaude, claudecode, databricks, agents, ai, code-assistant, code-generation, developer-tools, llm, mcp, llmops, ai-gateway, cursor, llamacpp, llm-gateway, llm-proxy, llm-router, ollama, prompt-caching, self-hosted
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://fast-editor.github.io/Lynkr/
docs_sitehttps://fast-editor.github.io/Lynkr/
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
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 11 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 1/30 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 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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 — 17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate2.7

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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 76 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.8
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — native/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.cjs
11/11Static type checking — packages/ai-sdk-provider/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 36 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspackages/ai-sdk-provider/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.36
toolchain_manifestsnative/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (packages/ai-sdk-provider/tsconfig.json)
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 11/400 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes403,191
source_files_sampled400
oversized_source_files11
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

550GitHub stars
10contributors
243commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
2bus factor
3open issues
crates.io, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'lynkr-native' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index npm:lynkr@9.14.8; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 61 ⇿
0Stars
61Forks
1Releases

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.

013253850636162025-122026-052026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 0
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 · 2026-09-14 11:31 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests11 out of 11 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 1/30 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
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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
0Vulnerabilities17 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ionapi3native/Cargo.toml
crates.ionapi-derive3native/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1native/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1native/Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1native/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10native/Cargo.toml
crates.iohex0.4native/Cargo.toml
crates.iomimalloc0.1native/Cargo.toml
npm@blackwell-systems/gcf2.4.0package.json
npm@toon-format/toon^2.1.0package.json
npmcockatiel^3.2.1package.json
npmdiff^5.2.0package.json
npmdotenv^16.4.5package.json
npmexpress^5.1.0package.json
npmexpress-rate-limit^8.2.1package.json
npmhnswlib-node^3.0.0package.json
npmjs-tiktoken^1.0.20package.json
npmpino^8.17.2package.json
npmpino-http^8.6.0package.json
npmpino-roll^4.0.0package.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.