Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 02:22 UTC

GalaxyPay / lute-connect

A library to sign transactions with Lute Wallet

TypeScriptMIT★ 10 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Jan 2024View on GitHub ↗

GalaxyPay/lute-connect holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (31/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Galaxy PayOrganization
14 followers7 public repossince Dec 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@galaxypay/lute-connect3.0.1331225 days agoalgorandledgerwallet

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 20 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 25 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~77.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv3.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release25
mean_days_between_releases77.8
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars10
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
33.6/80Monthly downloads — 331 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@galaxypay/lute-connect
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads331
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.976
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 19/19 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs19
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.5/25Owner reach — 14 followers of GalaxyPay
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers14
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGalaxyPay
public_repos7
account_age_days4,288
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 25 days ago
12/20Version history — 2 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@galaxypay/lute-connect
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish25

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://lute.app
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsalgorand
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://lute.app
docs_sitehttps://lute.app
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages68
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 68 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.

33At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.3/40Legible commit history — 21 of 84 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.25
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 84
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes6,495
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
2contributors
11commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
0open 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
3Releases

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.

12233312024-012024-082025-03
Major 0Minor 2Patch 1

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 02:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@oxc-project/types0.146.0indirect
npm@quansync/fs1.0.0indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm-eabi1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm641.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm641.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-x641.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x641.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm641.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.2.5indirect
npm@rolldown/pluginutils1.0.1indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-android-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-darwin-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-darwin-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-freebsd-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-arm-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-arm-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-arm64-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-arm64-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-x64-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-linux-x64-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-win32-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-codegen/binding-win32-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-android-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-darwin-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-darwin-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-freebsd-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-arm-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-arm-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-arm64-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-arm64-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-x64-gnu0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-linux-x64-musl0.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-win32-arm640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-parser/binding-win32-x640.8.7indirect
npm@yuku-toolchain/types0.8.7indirect
npmansis4.3.1indirect
npmcac7.0.0indirect
npmdefu6.1.7indirect
npmdts-resolver3.0.0indirect
npmempathic2.0.1indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmget-tsconfig5.0.0-beta.5indirect
npmhookable6.1.1indirect
npmimport-without-cache0.4.0indirect
npmobug2.1.4indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmquansync1.0.0indirect
npmresolve-pkg-maps1.0.0indirect
npmrolldown1.2.5indirect
npmrolldown-plugin-dts0.27.14indirect
npmtinyexec1.3.0indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtree-kill1.2.2indirect
npmtsdown0.22.14indirect
npmtypescript5.9.3indirect
npmunconfig-core7.5.0indirect
npmverkit0.3.2indirect
npmyuku-ast0.8.7indirect
npmyuku-codegen0.8.7indirect
npmyuku-parser0.8.7indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 68 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.