Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-25 13:39 UTC

FiredMosquito831 / my-claude-code

My Claude Code (MCC) is a local multi-provider LLM proxy, model router and control plane for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Gemini CLI and other AI coding agents — 57 providers, fallback routing, credential health, a native web-search tool proxy, and exhaustive analytics with cost provenance in one local dashboard.

PythonCustom license★ 9 stars⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationCommand-line toolChat botLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

FiredMosquito831/my-claude-code holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FiredMosquito831Personal account
19 followers59 public repossince Feb 2021Danube Labs

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 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,331 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,331
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv7.50.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.1

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
14.6/60Stars — 9 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars9
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
45.7/80Monthly downloads — 2,672 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmy-claude-code
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,672
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
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 37 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled37
top_contributor_share0.533
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 168/168 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs168
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d41
prs_decided_7d41
prs_merged_30d60
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.4/25Owner reach — 19 followers of FiredMosquito831
24.2/25Track record — 59 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers19
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginFiredMosquito831
public_repos59
account_age_days2,048
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 55 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmy-claude-code
ecosystemspypi
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 — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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://firedmosquito831.github.io/my-claude-code/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, ai-gateway, anthropic, claude-code, claude-code-proxy, codex, coding-agents, cost-tracking, developer-tools, gemini-cli, llm-observability, llm-proxy, llm-router, local-first, model-routing, ollama, openai, opencode, openrouter, web-search
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://firedmosquito831.github.io/my-claude-code/
docs_sitehttps://firedmosquito831.github.io/my-claude-code/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 36 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5

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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://vercel.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://vercel.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes12,410
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — desktop-shell/src-tauri/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsdesktop-shell/src-tauri/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 31/1,192 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes984,861
source_files_sampled1,192
oversized_source_files31

Key facts

9GitHub stars
37contributors
1,331commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage 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
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:my-claude-code@7.50.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-25 13:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities36 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIfastapi>=0.139.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.50.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.28.1pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown-it-py>=4.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.13.4pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv>=1.2.2pyproject.toml
PyPItiktoken>=0.13.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-telegram-bot>=22.8pyproject.toml
PyPIdiscord.py>=2.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings>=2.14.2pyproject.toml
PyPIopenai>=2.54.0,<3pyproject.toml
PyPIgoogle-auth>=2.56.3pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.34.2pyproject.toml
PyPIloguru>=0.7.0pyproject.toml
PyPIaiohttp>=3.14.1pyproject.toml
PyPIjsonschema>=4.25.0pyproject.toml
PyPIddgs>=9.14.4pyproject.toml
PyPIopenpyxl>=3.1.5pyproject.toml
PyPIpillow>=11.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpystray>=0.19.5pyproject.toml
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 — PyPI.