Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 18:46 UTC

KittyMac / Sextant

High performance JSONPath queries for Swift

SwiftMIT★ 68 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Nov 2021View on GitHub ↗

KittyMac/Sextant holds a health index of 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (49/100) and lowest on Security (14/100). It was last updated 53 days ago. 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 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

Ownership

Rocco BowlingPersonal account

33 followers280 public repossince Jun 2011Chimera Software, LLC

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?

49Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

28At Risk

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 53 days ago
2.8/36	Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18	Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	4
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	53
active_weeks_last_year	4

Release discipline

80Excellent

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 52 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~70.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	52
latest_release_tag	v0.4.41
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	53
mean_days_between_releases	70.1

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?

44Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

39Weak

How it's scored

29.6/60	Stars — 68 stars
8/25	Forks — 10 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	10
stars	68
watchers	3
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 (MIT)
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	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

41Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

15Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.994

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate

How it's scored

38.8/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
10/30	PR acceptance — 1/3 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	1
open_issues	1
closed_issues	12
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.923
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11/25	Owner reach — 33 followers of KittyMac
25/25	Track record — 280 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	33
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	KittyMac
public_repos	280
account_age_days	5,560

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At 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 — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

14Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

6Critical

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
0.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	1.6
malicious_dependency_cap	19
malicious_dependency_multiplier	35
security_posture_before_malicious	17

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 19.

Dependency advisories

44Weak

Malicious package alert

Dependency reported as a malicious package

fs 0.0.1-securitydirect dependencySecurity and overall rating: Critical ceiling

Matched against the OpenSSF malicious-packages corpus via OSV. There is no corrected release of the same artifact — the remedy is removal, or moving off the compromised name. The report concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, who may have resolved it unknowingly.

How malicious dependencies are identified

How it's scored

6.1/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: jsonpath 1.1.1 (critical 9.8), jsonpath-plus 0.18.1 (critical 9.8)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
26.8/40	No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 708 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	9
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	24
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 2, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 24 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

47Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

3Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.7/40	Legible commit history — 5 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.05
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, meta/jsonpath/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Swift (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, meta/jsonpath/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Swift (statically typed)
53.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/88 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Swift
largest_source_bytes	68,955
source_files_sampled	88
oversized_source_files	2

Key facts

68GitHub stars

2contributors

4commits, last 12 months

53days since last push

52releases

1bus factor

1open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package 'jsonpath_test' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 10 ⇿

0Stars

10Forks

46Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 1Patch 45

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.6 / 10

1.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 18:46 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
1	Vulnerabilities	9 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 4

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	fs	`0.0.1-security`	meta/jsonpath/package.json
npm	jsonpath	`^1.1.1`	meta/jsonpath/package.json
npm	jsonpath-faster	`^0.0.12`	meta/jsonpath/package.json
npm	jsonpath-plus	`^0.18.1`	meta/jsonpath/package.json

All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	fs	`0.0.1-security`	direct
npm	jsonpath	`1.1.1`	direct
npm	jsonpath-faster	`0.0.12`	direct
npm	jsonpath-plus	`0.18.1`	direct
npm	deep-is	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	escodegen	`1.14.3`	indirect
npm	escodegen	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	esprima	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	esprima	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	estraverse	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	estraverse	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	esutils	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-levenshtein	`2.0.6`	indirect
npm	generate-function	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	is-property	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	levn	`0.3.0`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect
npm	optionator	`0.8.3`	indirect
npm	prelude-ls	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	source-map	`0.6.1`	indirect
npm	static-eval	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	type-check	`0.3.2`	indirect
npm	underscore	`1.12.1`	indirect
npm	word-wrap	`1.2.3`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 24 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
jsonpath	`1.1.1`	direct	critical	2	`1.3.0`
jsonpath-plus	`0.18.1`	direct	critical	2	`10.3.0`
lodash	`4.17.21`	indirect	high	3	`4.18.0`
underscore	`1.12.1`	indirect	high	1	`1.13.8`
word-wrap	`1.2.3`	indirect	moderate	1	`1.2.4`

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.

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.