Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 23:27 UTC

KittyCAD / kcl-lsp

The `kcl` Language Server Protocol implementation.

TypeScript · RustMIT★ 10 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2023archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolEditor extensionhow this is determined

KittyCAD/kcl-lsp holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (60/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

16
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.

16
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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ZooOrganization · verified domain
913 followers87 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.ioreleasepoints to another repo — not scored0.8.12633204 days agogit

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 554 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.16
days_since_last_push554
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 66 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 558 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count66
latest_release_tagv0.1.71
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release558
mean_days_between_releases14.8

Community & Adoption

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

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars10
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.94
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
16.1/30PR acceptance — 287/535 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs287
open_issues0
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs248
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21.3/25Owner reach — 913 followers of KittyCAD
23.9/25Track record — 87 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers913
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginKittyCAD
public_repos87
account_age_days1,987

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.js, rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=KittyCAD.kcl-language-server
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttps://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=KittyCAD.kcl-language-server
docs_sitehttps://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=KittyCAD.kcl-language-server
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
0/7.5Maintained — project is archived
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-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 — 67 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: regex 0.2.11 (high 7.5), git2 0.6.11 (moderate 6.8)
6/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: libgit2-sys 0.6.19 (high 8.6), thread_local 0.3.6 (high), idna 0.1.5 (moderate 4.8)
21.4/40No advisories left outstanding — 5 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,691 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories15
affected_packages5
assessed_packages33
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the crates:release@0.8.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 33 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.js, rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 84 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
lockfilesCargo.lock, yarn.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, release/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.84
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes10,792
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

10GitHub stars
5contributors
0commits, last 12 months
554days since last push
66releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'kcl-language-server' from its registry
  • crates package 'release' points at a different repository (https://github.com/sourcepirate/release); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 23:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
0CI-Tests0 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities67 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 27
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioanyhow1.0.97Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5.31Cargo.toml
crates.iodashmap6.1.0Cargo.toml
crates.iokcl-lib0.2.45Cargo.toml
crates.iokittycad0.3.30Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.5.0Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.26Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog2.7.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-async2.8.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-json2.6.1Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-term2.9.1Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3.19Cargo.toml
npmvscode-languageclient^9.0.1package.json
crates.ioanyhow1.0.97release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioclap4.5.31release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioflate21.1.0release/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.26release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog2.7.0release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-async2.8.0release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-json2.6.1release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioslog-term2.9.1release/Cargo.toml
crates.iotracing-subscriber0.3.19release/Cargo.toml
crates.iotime0.3.37release/Cargo.toml
crates.ioxshell0.2.6release/Cargo.toml
crates.iozip0.6.6release/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1.43.0release/Cargo.toml
crates.iolazy_static1.5.0release/Cargo.toml
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

Dependency advisories 5

Installing crates:release@0.8.1 pulls in 33 packages, direct and transitive: 5 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
regex0.2.11directhigh21.5.5
libgit2-sys0.6.19indirecthigh40.16.2
thread_local0.3.6indirecthigh21.1.4
git20.6.11directmoderate50.21.0
idna0.1.5indirectmoderate21.0.0

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 — crates.io.