Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 04:29 UTC

InsanusMokrassar / MicroUtils

Collection of tools for coding in Kotlin

KotlinApache-2.0★ 37 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Sep 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

InsanusMokrassar/MicroUtils holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (39/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

InsanusMokrassarPersonal account
50 followers115 public repossince Mar 2014

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 5 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence19/52 weeks with commits
16.4/18Commit volume66 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year66
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 6 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~21.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.31.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases21.8
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?

39Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/60Stars37 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars37
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

40Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.996
How it's scored
30.2/42Issue resolution72% of issues closed
16.6/30PR acceptance356/642 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs356
open_issues7
closed_issues18
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.72
closed_unmerged_prs286
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.3/25Owner reach50 followers of InsanusMokrassar
25/25Track record115 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers50
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginInsanusMokrassar
public_repos115
account_age_days4,568
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://insanusmokrassar.github.io/MicroUtils/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicskotlin, kotlin-library, hacktoberfest, hacktoberfest2020, kotlin-multiplatform, kotlin-multiplatform-library, complex-modules, kotlin-android, kotlin-js
has_wikino
homepagehttps://insanusmokrassar.github.io/MicroUtils/
docs_sitehttps://insanusmokrassar.github.io/MicroUtils/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

51Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests5 out of 5 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 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.8/40Legible commit history24 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.24
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,056
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapandroid/alerts/common/build.gradle, android/alerts/recyclerview/build.gradle, android/pickers/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingKotlin (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsandroid/alerts/common/build.gradle, android/alerts/recyclerview/build.gradle, android/pickers/build.gradle, android/recyclerview/build.gradle, android/smalltextfield/build.gradle, build.gradle, colors/build.gradle, colors/common/build.gradle, common/build.gradle, common/compose/build.gradle, coroutines/build.gradle, coroutines/compose/build.gradle, crypto/build.gradle, dokka/build.gradle, fsm/common/build.gradle, fsm/repos/common/build.gradle, koin/build.gradle, koin/generator/build.gradle, koin/generator/test/build.gradle, ksp/classcasts/build.gradle, ksp/classcasts/generator/build.gradle, ksp/classcasts/generator/test/build.gradle, ksp/generator/build.gradle, ksp/sealed/build.gradle, ksp/sealed/generator/build.gradle, ksp/sealed/generator/test/build.gradle, ksp/variations/build.gradle, ksp/variations/generator/build.gradle, ksp/variations/generator/test/build.gradle, ktor/client/build.gradle, ktor/common/build.gradle, ktor/server/build.gradle, language_codes/build.gradle, language_codes/generator/build.gradle, matrix/build.gradle, meta/build.gradle, mime_types/build.gradle, pagination/common/build.gradle, pagination/compose/build.gradle, pagination/exposed/build.gradle, pagination/ktor/common/build.gradle, pagination/ktor/server/build.gradle, repos/cache/build.gradle, repos/common/build.gradle, repos/common/tests/build.gradle, repos/exposed/build.gradle, repos/generator/build.gradle, repos/generator/test/build.gradle, repos/inmemory/build.gradle, repos/ktor/client/build.gradle, repos/ktor/common/build.gradle, repos/ktor/server/build.gradle, resources/build.gradle, safe_wrapper/build.gradle, selector/common/build.gradle, serialization/base64/build.gradle, serialization/encapsulator/build.gradle, serialization/mapper/build.gradle, serialization/typed_serializer/build.gradle, startup/launcher/build.gradle, startup/plugin/build.gradle, startup/template/client/build.gradle, startup/template/common/build.gradle, startup/template/server/build.gradle, transactions/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeKotlin (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes3/527 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes192,013
source_files_sampled527
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

37GitHub stars
2contributors
66commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
7open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks
76Releases

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.

12345512023-022024-032025-05
Major 0Minor 5Patch 71

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 04:28 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 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 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
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.

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.