Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 23:39 UTC

Hannah-Sten / TeXiFy-IDEA

LaTeX support for the IntelliJ platform by JetBrains.

KotlinMIT★ 990 stars⑂ 99 forkssince Jul 2016View on GitHub ↗

Hannah-Sten/TeXiFy-IDEA holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (58/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 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?

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 20 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 709 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year709
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year43
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 80 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 33 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~41 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count80
latest_release_tagv1.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release33
mean_days_between_releases41

Community & Adoption

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

80Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.6/60Stars — 990 stars
16.6/25Forks — 99 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks99
stars990
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 66 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled66
top_contributor_share0.568
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.9/30PR acceptance — 1,469/1,524 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs1,469
open_issues1
closed_issues2,837
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs55
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.5/25Owner reach — 14 followers of Hannah-Sten
18.2/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers14
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginHannah-Sten
public_repos6
account_age_days3,894

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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 site — https://hannah-sten.github.io/TeXiFy-IDEA
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 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-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 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
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 29 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool detected
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 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 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
advisories10
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)
18.4/40Legible commit history — 32 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.344
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 bootstrap — build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.js
11/11Static type checking — .github/actions/insert-youtrack-link/node_modules/json-with-bigint/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share0.07
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 1/995 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes180,226
source_files_sampled995
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

990GitHub stars
66contributors
709commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
80releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 99 ⇿
0Stars
99Forks
79Releases

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.

0204060801009832017-032022-012026-10
Major 1Minor 3Patch 56

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 · 2026-10-21 23:38 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-Tests9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 29 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 6 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
0Vulnerabilities10 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
PyPIbeautifulsoup4—direct
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.15.0direct
PyPIrequests—direct
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
undici6.25.0indirecthigh108.10.2

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.