Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 17:50 UTC

Gitlawb / openclaude

runs anywhere. uses anything

TypeScriptCustom license★ 33,352 stars⑂ 9,085 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Gitlawb/openclaude holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (89/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

GitlawbOrganization
1,041 followers18 public repossince Mar 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@gitlawb/openclaude0.30.052,8554616 days agoclaude-codeopenaillmcliagentdeepseekollamagemini

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,209 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,209
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year25

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 16 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count42
latest_release_tagv0.30.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release16
mean_days_between_releases6.2

Community & Adoption

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

89Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 33,352 stars
25/25Forks — 9,085 forks
13.1/15Watchers — 229 watchers
Inputs used
forks9,085
stars33,352
watchers229
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
63/80Monthly downloads — 52,855 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@gitlawb/openclaude
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads52,855
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?

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.202
How it's scored
39/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
21.7/30PR acceptance — 1,039/1,438 decided PRs merged
7.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 6/10 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs1,039
open_issues45
closed_issues581
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d17
prs_decided_30d25
issue_closed_ratio0.928
closed_unmerged_prs399
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d10
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
21.7/25Owner reach — 1,041 followers of Gitlawb
10.3/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,041
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGitlawb
public_repos18
account_age_days184

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 16 days ago
20/20Version history — 46 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@gitlawb/openclaude
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish16

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openclaude.gitlawb.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, ai-agent, ai-tools, cli, coding
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openclaude.gitlawb.com
docs_sitehttps://openclaude.gitlawb.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestspackage.json, web/package.json
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages18
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:@gitlawb/openclaude@0.30.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 18 packages. 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 94 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,874
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.06
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
54/55Manageable file sizes — 63/3,305 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes290,288
source_files_sampled3,305
oversized_source_files63
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — src/proto/openclaude.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filessrc/proto/openclaude.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

33,352GitHub stars
98contributors
1,209commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
42releases
4bus factor
45open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 15 authors (cap 12)
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9,085 ⇿
0Stars
9,085Forks
25Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

8,0008,2008,4008,6008,8009,0009,2009,085512026-052026-072026-09
Major 0Minor 20Patch 5
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@orama/orama3.1.18package.json
npm@orama/plugin-data-persistence3.1.18package.json
npm@vscode/ripgrep1.18.0package.json
npm@astrojs/check0.9.9web/package.json
npm@astrojs/sitemap3.7.3web/package.json
npm@fontsource-variable/geist-mono^5.2.5web/package.json
npmastro6.4.6web/package.json
npmtypescript^5.8.3web/package.json
All dependencies 84

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 75 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@astrojs/check0.9.9direct
npm@astrojs/sitemap3.7.3direct
npm@fontsource-variable/geist-mono^5.2.5direct
npm@orama/orama3.1.18direct
npm@orama/plugin-data-persistence3.1.18direct
npm@vscode/ripgrep1.18.0direct
npmastro6.4.6direct
npmtypescript5.9.3direct
npmtypescript^5.8.3direct
npm@alcalzone/ansi-tokenize0.3.0indirect
npm@anthropic-ai/bedrock-sdk0.29.1indirect
npm@anthropic-ai/foundry-sdk0.2.3indirect
npm@anthropic-ai/sandbox-runtime0.0.55indirect
npm@anthropic-ai/sdk0.94.0indirect
npm@aws-sdk/client-bedrock3.1047.0indirect
npm@aws-sdk/client-sts3.1047.0indirect
npm@aws-sdk/credential-provider-node3.972.41indirect
npm@azure/identity^4.13.1indirect
npm@commander-js/extra-typings12.1.0indirect
npm@grpc/grpc-js^1.14.3indirect
npm@grpc/proto-loader^0.8.0indirect
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk1.29.0indirect
npm@sentry/node^10.70.0indirect
npm@smithy/core3.24.3indirect
npm@smithy/node-http-handler4.7.3indirect
npm@types/bun1.3.11indirect
npm@types/node25.5.0indirect
npm@types/react19.2.14indirect
npmajv8.18.0indirect
npmauto-bind5.0.1indirect
npmaxios1.16.0indirect
npmbidi-js1.0.3indirect
npmchalk5.6.2indirect
npmchokidar4.0.3indirect
npmcli-boxes3.0.0indirect
npmcli-highlight2.1.11indirect
npmcommander12.1.0indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.6indirect
npmdiff8.0.3indirect
npmduck-duck-scrape^2.2.7indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmenv-paths3.0.0indirect
npmexeca9.6.1indirect
npmfflate0.8.2indirect
npmfigures6.1.0indirect
npmfuse.js7.1.0indirect
npmget-east-asian-width1.5.0indirect
npmgoogle-auth-library10.6.2indirect
npmgraphology0.26.0indirect
npmgraphology-metrics2.4.0indirect
npmhttps-proxy-agent7.0.6indirect
npmignore7.0.5indirect
npmindent-string5.0.0indirect
npmjs-tiktoken1.0.21indirect
npmjsonc-parser3.3.1indirect
npmknip^6.16.1indirect
npmlodash-es4.18.1indirect
npmlru-cache11.2.7indirect
npmmarked15.0.12indirect
npmp-map7.0.4indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.4indirect
npmproper-lockfile4.1.2indirect
npmqrcode1.5.4indirect
npmreact19.2.4indirect
npmreact-compiler-runtime1.0.0indirect
npmreact-reconciler0.33.0indirect
npmsemver7.7.4indirect
npmsharp^0.34.5indirect
npmshell-quote1.8.4indirect
npmsignal-exit4.1.0indirect
npmsupports-hyperlinks3.2.0indirect
npmtree-kill1.2.2indirect
npmtree-sitter-wasms0.1.13indirect
npmturndown7.2.2indirect
npmtype-fest4.41.0indirect
npmundici7.28.0indirect
npmusehooks-ts3.1.1indirect
npmvscode-languageserver-protocol3.17.5indirect
npmweb-tree-sitter0.25.10indirect
npmwrap-ansi9.0.2indirect
npmws8.21.0indirect
npmxss1.0.15indirect
npmyaml2.8.3indirect
npmzod3.25.76indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:@gitlawb/openclaude@0.30.0 pulls in 18 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.