Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 18:58 UTC

Hannah-Sten / TeXiFy-IDEA

LaTeX support for the IntelliJ platform by JetBrains.

KotlinMIT★ 984 stars⑂ 97 forkssince Jul 2016View on GitHub ↗

Hannah-Sten/TeXiFy-IDEA holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Security (58/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hannah-StenOrganization
14 followers6 public repossince Feb 2016

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?

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume833 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year833
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year43
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases79 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 27 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~40.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count79
latest_release_tagv1.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release27
mean_days_between_releases40.4

Community & Adoption

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

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.5/60Stars984 stars
16.5/25Forks97 forks
5.3/15Watchers10 watchers
Inputs used
forks97
stars984
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
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_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesisitmaintained.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth63 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled63
top_contributor_share0.567
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.9/30PR acceptance1,458/1,513 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,458
open_issues4
closed_issues2,832
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio0.999
closed_unmerged_prs55
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.5/25Owner reach14 followers of Hannah-Sten
18.2/25Track record6 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers14
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginHannah-Sten
public_repos6
account_age_days3,848

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configeslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://hannah-sten.github.io/TeXiFy-IDEA
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsintellij-plugin, latex, texify, intellij-platform, jetbrains, intellij, idea, latex-editor
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://hannah-sten.github.io/TeXiFy-IDEA
docs_sitehttps://hannah-sten.github.io/TeXiFy-IDEA
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
3/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests11 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool detected
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories7
affected_packages1
assessed_packages27
unassessed_packages2
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 27 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/actions/insert-youtrack-link/node_modules/undici/docs/docs/api/Agent.md, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
17.6/40Legible commit history31 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.33
agent_instruction_files.github/actions/insert-youtrack-link/node_modules/undici/docs/docs/api/Agent.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,797
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapbuild.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configeslint.config.js
11/11Static type checking.github/actions/insert-youtrack-link/node_modules/json-with-bigint/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs.github/actions/insert-youtrack-link/node_modules/json-with-bigint/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeKotlin (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes1/995 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes180,226
source_files_sampled995
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

984GitHub stars
63contributors
833commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
79releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Maven, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'TeXiFy-scripts' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 97 ⇿
0Stars
97Forks
78Releases

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.

0204060801009632017-032021-122026-08
Major 1Minor 3Patch 55

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 18:57 UTC

4Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
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 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 27 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool detected
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIbeautifulsoup4>=4.14.3scripts/pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.32.5scripts/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbeautifulsoup4direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIrequestsdirect
PyPIrequests2.34.2direct
npm@actions/core3.0.1indirect
npm@actions/exec3.0.0indirect
npm@actions/github9.1.1indirect
npm@actions/http-client3.0.2indirect
npm@actions/http-client4.0.1indirect
npm@actions/io3.0.2indirect
npm@octokit/auth-token6.0.0indirect
npm@octokit/core7.0.6indirect
npm@octokit/endpoint11.0.3indirect
npm@octokit/graphql9.0.3indirect
npm@octokit/openapi-types27.0.0indirect
npm@octokit/plugin-paginate-rest14.0.0indirect
npm@octokit/plugin-request-log6.0.0indirect
npm@octokit/plugin-rest-endpoint-methods17.0.0indirect
npm@octokit/request10.0.9indirect
npm@octokit/request-error7.1.0indirect
npm@octokit/rest22.0.1indirect
npm@octokit/types16.0.0indirect
npmbefore-after-hook4.0.0indirect
npmcontent-type2.0.0indirect
npmfast-content-type-parse3.0.0indirect
npmjson-with-bigint3.5.8indirect
npmtunnel0.0.6indirect
npmundici6.25.0indirect
npmuniversal-user-agent7.0.3indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 27 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
undici6.25.0indirecthigh78.9.0

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.