Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-22 16:18 UTC

HelixDevelopment / constitution

Constitution, AGENTS.MD and CLAUDE.MD universal agent rules and constraints

Shell · HTML · PythonApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

#agents #agentsmd #claude #claude-code #claudemd #constitution #constraints #rules

HelixDevelopment/constitution holds a health index of 8 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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 42 is calibrated to 38 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

helix development / hxd3vOrganization

2 followers36 public repossince Aug 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?

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36	Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 957 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data

Inputs used

commits_last_year	957
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	23

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 4 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~28.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	4
latest_release_tag	helixconstitution-v70
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	3
mean_days_between_releases	28.9

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	1
watchers	0
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 (Apache-2.0)
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	9
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

28At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Ownership & stewardship

47Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
3.4/25	Owner reach — 2 followers of HelixDevelopment
13.7/25	Track record — 36 public repos, account ~1 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	HelixDevelopment
public_repos	36
account_age_days	422

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://deepwiki.com/HelixDevelopment/constitution
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 8 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	agents, agentsmd, claude, claude-code, claudemd, constitution, constraints, rules
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://deepwiki.com/HelixDevelopment/constitution
docs_site	https://deepwiki.com/HelixDevelopment/constitution
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?

1Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

1Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 software.redFlag.role.ownerRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

0/30	Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25	Dependabot config
0/25	Dependency lockfiles — no dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20	CodeQL workflow

Inputs used

source	file_signals
lockfiles	go.sum
manifests	—
has_codeql_workflow	no
has_security_policy	no
has_dependabot_config	no
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	20
security_posture_after_multiplier	1
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, submodules/clickup_sync/AGENTS.md, submodules/clickup_sync/CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.92
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, submodules/clickup_sync/AGENTS.md, submodules/clickup_sync/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	726,447

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — scripts/doc_integrity/go.mod, scripts/label-sync/go.mod, scripts/llm-alias-health/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 89 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.89
toolchain_manifests	scripts/doc_integrity/go.mod, scripts/label-sync/go.mod, scripts/llm-alias-health/go.mod, scripts/scheduled-work-engine/go.mod, scripts/workable-items/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Shell without a type-check config
53/55	Manageable file sizes — 12/330 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Shell
largest_source_bytes	342,208
source_files_sampled	330
oversized_source_files	12

Machine-readable interfaces

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20	MCP server
0/40	Runnable examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	—
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

1GitHub stars

1contributors

957commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

4releases

1bus factor

0open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/HelixDevelopment/HelixConstitution/scripts/label-sync' from its registry
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/HelixDevelopment/HelixConstitution/scripts/doc_integrity' from its registry
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/HelixDevelopment/HelixConstitution/scripts/workable-items' from its registry
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/HelixDevelopment/HelixConstitution/scripts/llm-alias-health' from its registry
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/HelixDevelopment/HelixConstitution/scripts/scheduled-work-engine' from its registry
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/HelixDevelopment/constitution: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-10-22T16:18:02Z. Please include `96CC:22D61B:8EDD7D7:CF76AEB:6ADA3738` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3	`v1.14.48`	scripts/doc_integrity/go.mod
Go	github.com/xuri/excelize/v2	`v2.11.0`	scripts/doc_integrity/go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	scripts/doc_integrity/go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	scripts/llm-alias-health/go.mod
Go	github.com/andybalholm/brotli	`v1.2.2`	scripts/scheduled-work-engine/go.mod
Go	github.com/gin-gonic/gin	`v1.12.0`	scripts/scheduled-work-engine/go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	scripts/scheduled-work-engine/go.mod
Go	github.com/quic-go/quic-go	`v0.60.0`	scripts/scheduled-work-engine/go.mod
Go	github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3	`v1.14.48`	scripts/workable-items/go.mod

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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