Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-24 22:43 UTC

Flemma-Dev / flemma.nvim

AI knowledge workbench for Neovim.

LuaAGPL-3.0★ 58 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Feb 2025View on GitHub ↗

#ai #anthropic #chatgpt #claude #dev-tools #gemini #generative-ai #llm #lua #neovim #neovim-plugin #nvim #openai #plugin #vertex-ai #chat #knowledge-management

Flemma-Dev/flemma.nvim holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (38/100). It was last updated 57 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FlemmaOrganization

1 follower2 public repossince Sep 2025

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 57 days ago
22.2/36	Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,629 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,629
human_commit_share	0.95
days_since_last_push	57
active_weeks_last_year	32

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 57 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~15.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	14
latest_release_tag	v0.14.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	57
mean_days_between_releases	15.9

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?

40Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

31At Risk

How it's scored

28.5/60	Stars — 58 stars
2.5/25	Forks — 3 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	3
stars	58
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
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	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

38Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

16Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.992

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good

How it's scored

28/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
29.4/30	PR acceptance — 50/51 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	50
open_issues	1
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.667
closed_unmerged_prs	1
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

38Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
2.2/25	Owner reach — 1 followers of Flemma-Dev
5.6/25	Track record — 2 public repos, account ~1 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	Flemma-Dev
public_repos	2
account_age_days	381

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak

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
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 17 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ai, anthropic, chatgpt, claude, dev-tools, gemini, generative-ai, llm, lua, neovim, neovim-plugin, nvim, openai, plugin, vertex-ai, chat, knowledge-management
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

53Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 — no data
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	10
affected_packages	3
assessed_packages	109
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 3
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 109 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 94 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.989
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	23,202

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

50Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Nix, 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	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	pnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Lua without a type-check config
0/55	Manageable file sizes — no source files detected

Inputs used

primary_language	Lua
largest_source_bytes	—
source_files_sampled	0
oversized_source_files	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

58GitHub stars

3contributors

1,629commits, last 12 months

57days since last push

14releases

1bus factor

1open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿

0Stars

3Forks

4Releases

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 0Minor 4Patch 0

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10

4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-24 22:42 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4	Vulnerabilities	6 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 109

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 109 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@babel/runtime	`7.28.6`	indirect
npm	@changesets/apply-release-plan	`7.0.14`	indirect
npm	@changesets/assemble-release-plan	`6.0.9`	indirect
npm	@changesets/changelog-git	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	@changesets/changelog-github	`0.5.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/cli	`2.29.8`	indirect
npm	@changesets/config	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/errors	`0.2.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/get-dependents-graph	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	@changesets/get-github-info	`0.7.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/get-release-plan	`4.0.14`	indirect
npm	@changesets/get-version-range-type	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/git	`3.0.4`	indirect
npm	@changesets/logger	`0.1.1`	indirect
npm	@changesets/parse	`0.4.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/pre	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/read	`0.6.6`	indirect
npm	@changesets/should-skip-package	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	@changesets/types	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/types	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	@changesets/write	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	@inquirer/external-editor	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	@manypkg/find-root	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	@manypkg/get-packages	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.scandir	`2.1.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.stat	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	@nodelib/fs.walk	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`12.20.55`	indirect
npm	ansi-colors	`4.1.3`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	argparse	`1.0.10`	indirect
npm	argparse	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	array-union	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	better-path-resolve	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	braces	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	chardet	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	ci-info	`3.9.0`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	dataloader	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	detect-indent	`6.1.0`	indirect
npm	dir-glob	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	dotenv	`8.6.0`	indirect
npm	enquirer	`2.4.1`	indirect
npm	esprima	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	extendable-error	`0.1.7`	indirect
npm	fast-glob	`3.3.3`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.20.1`	indirect
npm	fill-range	`7.1.1`	indirect
npm	find-up	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	fs-extra	`7.0.1`	indirect
npm	fs-extra	`8.1.0`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	globby	`11.1.0`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.11`	indirect
npm	human-id	`4.1.3`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.7.2`	indirect
npm	ignore	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	is-number	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-subdir	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	is-windows	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`3.14.2`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	jsonfile	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.startcase	`4.4.0`	indirect
npm	merge2	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	micromatch	`4.0.8`	indirect
npm	mri	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	node-fetch	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	outdent	`0.5.0`	indirect
npm	p-filter	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-map	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-try	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	package-manager-detector	`0.2.11`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	path-type	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	pify	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	prettier	`2.8.8`	indirect
npm	quansync	`0.2.11`	indirect
npm	queue-microtask	`1.2.3`	indirect
npm	read-yaml-file	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	resolve-from	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	run-parallel	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.4`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	slash	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	spawndamnit	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	sprintf-js	`1.0.3`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	strip-bom	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	term-size	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	to-regex-range	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	tr46	`0.0.3`	indirect
npm	universalify	`0.1.2`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 109 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
js-yaml	`3.14.2`	indirect	high	4	`4.3.2`
js-yaml	`4.1.1`	indirect	high	4	`4.3.2`
picomatch	`2.3.1`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`

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