Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 01:29 UTC

Lanayx / Oxpecker

Backend and Frontend F# frameworks

F#MIT★ 422 stars⑂ 24 forkssince Dec 2023View on GitHub ↗

#asp-net-core #fsharp #htmx #solidjs #web

Lanayx/Oxpecker holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Good

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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Vladimir ShchurPersonal account

47 followers59 public repossince Jan 2013

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?

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
17.3/36	Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
17/18	Commit volume — 78 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	78
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	25

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 41 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~75 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	9
latest_release_tag	2.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	41
mean_days_between_releases	75

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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

60Moderate

How it's scored

42.6/60	Stars — 422 stars
11.3/25	Forks — 24 forks
5.6/15	Watchers — 11 watchers

Inputs used

forks	24
stars	422
watchers	11
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?

51Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	15
top_contributor_share	0.962

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good

How it's scored

33.6/42	Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
19.1/30	PR acceptance — 30/47 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	30
open_issues	8
closed_issues	32
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.8
closed_unmerged_prs	17
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	1

Ownership & stewardship

59Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.1/25	Owner reach — 47 followers of Lanayx
24.9/25	Track record — 59 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	47
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	Lanayx
public_repos	59
account_age_days	4,961

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

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
14/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://lanayx.github.io/Oxpecker/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	asp-net-core, fsharp, htmx, solidjs, web
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://lanayx.github.io/Oxpecker/
docs_site	https://lanayx.github.io/Oxpecker/
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
1.8/2.5	CI-Tests — 3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 22 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	22
affected_packages	8
assessed_packages	203
unassessed_packages	6
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 4, moderate 1, low 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 203 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 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.

69Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

54Moderate

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.5/40	Legible commit history — 16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.16
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	3,342

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

58Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — tests/Oxpecker.Solid.Tests/Cases/EventHandler/EventHandler.fable-temp.csproj, tests/PerfTest.Csharp/PerfTest.Csharp.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — F# (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.01
toolchain_manifests	tests/Oxpecker.Solid.Tests/Cases/EventHandler/EventHandler.fable-temp.csproj, tests/PerfTest.Csharp/PerfTest.Csharp.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — F# (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	F#
largest_source_bytes	993
source_files_sampled	4
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

422GitHub stars

15contributors

78commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

9releases

1bus factor

8open issues

RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 24 ⇿

0Stars

24Forks

9Releases

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 2Minor 5Patch 2

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 01:29 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
7	CI-Tests	3 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	22 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	22 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 6

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
RubyGems	jekyll	`~> 4.2`	Gemfile
RubyGems	jekyll-readme-index	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	jekyll-remote-theme	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	jekyll-seo-tag	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	jekyll-github-metadata	`—`	Gemfile
RubyGems	sass-embedded	`< 1.100.0`	Gemfile

All dependencies 209

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 203 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	jekyll	`—`	direct
RubyGems	jekyll-github-metadata	`—`	direct
RubyGems	jekyll-readme-index	`—`	direct
RubyGems	jekyll-remote-theme	`—`	direct
RubyGems	jekyll-seo-tag	`—`	direct
RubyGems	sass-embedded	`—`	direct
npm	@ampproject/remapping	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/code-frame	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/compat-data	`7.25.4`	indirect
npm	@babel/core	`7.25.2`	indirect
npm	@babel/generator	`7.25.6`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-compilation-targets	`7.25.2`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-module-imports	`7.18.6`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-module-imports	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-module-transforms	`7.25.2`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-plugin-utils	`7.24.8`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-simple-access	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-string-parser	`7.24.8`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-identifier	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-option	`7.24.8`	indirect
npm	@babel/helpers	`7.25.6`	indirect
npm	@babel/highlight	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/parser	`7.25.6`	indirect
npm	@babel/plugin-syntax-jsx	`7.24.7`	indirect
npm	@babel/template	`7.25.0`	indirect
npm	@babel/traverse	`7.25.6`	indirect
npm	@babel/types	`7.25.6`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/aix-ppc64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/android-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/darwin-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/freebsd-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ia32	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-loong64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-mips64el	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-ppc64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-riscv64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-s390x	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/linux-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/netbsd-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openbsd-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/openharmony-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/sunos-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-arm64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-ia32	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@esbuild/win32-x64	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/gen-mapping	`0.3.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/remapping	`2.3.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/resolve-uri	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/set-array	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.0`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.5.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/trace-mapping	`0.3.25`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm-eabi	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-android-arm64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-darwin-x64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-arm64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-freebsd-x64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-musleabihf	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-musl	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-musl	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-musl	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-s390x-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openbsd-x64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-openharmony-arm64	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-ia32-msvc	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-gnu	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	@solidjs/meta	`0.29.4`	indirect
npm	@solidjs/router	`0.15.4`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/node	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-android-arm64	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-arm64	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-darwin-x64	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-freebsd-x64	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-gnu	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-arm64-musl	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-gnu	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-linux-x64-musl	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-wasm32-wasi	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-arm64-msvc	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/oxide-win32-x64-msvc	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@tailwindcss/vite	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	@types/babel__core	`7.20.5`	indirect
npm	@types/babel__generator	`7.6.8`	indirect
npm	@types/babel__template	`7.4.4`	indirect
npm	@types/babel__traverse	`7.20.6`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.8`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`3.2.1`	indirect
npm	babel-plugin-jsx-dom-expressions	`0.38.5`	indirect
npm	babel-preset-solid	`1.8.22`	indirect
npm	browserslist	`4.23.3`	indirect
npm	browserslist	`4.24.4`	indirect
npm	caniuse-lite	`1.0.30001660`	indirect
npm	caniuse-lite	`1.0.30001705`	indirect
npm	chalk	`2.4.2`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`1.9.3`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	convert-source-map	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	csstype	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.3.7`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	electron-to-chromium	`1.5.119`	indirect
npm	electron-to-chromium	`1.5.24`	indirect
npm	enhanced-resolve	`5.18.4`	indirect
npm	esbuild	`0.27.2`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`1.0.5`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	gensync	`1.0.0-beta.2`	indirect
npm	globals	`11.12.0`	indirect
npm	graceful-fs	`4.2.11`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	html-entities	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	is-what	`4.1.16`	indirect
npm	jiti	`2.6.1`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	jsesc	`2.5.2`	indirect
npm	json5	`2.2.3`	indirect
npm	lightningcss	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-android-arm64	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-arm64	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-x64	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-freebsd-x64	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-musl	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-gnu	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-musl	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-x64-msvc	`1.30.2`	indirect
npm	lru-cache	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	merge-anything	`5.1.7`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.11`	indirect
npm	node-releases	`2.0.18`	indirect
npm	node-releases	`2.0.19`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.5.6`	indirect
npm	rollup	`4.55.3`	indirect
npm	semver	`6.3.1`	indirect
npm	seroval	`1.3.2`	indirect
npm	seroval-plugins	`1.3.3`	indirect
npm	solid-js	`1.9.10`	indirect
npm	solid-refresh	`0.6.3`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`5.5.0`	indirect
npm	tailwindcss	`4.1.18`	indirect
npm	tapable	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.15`	indirect
npm	to-fast-properties	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	update-browserslist-db	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	update-browserslist-db	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	validate-html-nesting	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	vite	`7.3.1`	indirect
npm	vite-plugin-solid	`2.11.10`	indirect
npm	vitefu	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	yallist	`3.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	BenchmarkDotNet	`0.15.8`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.AST	`5.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Browser.Dom	`2.17.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Browser.Dom	`2.20.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Core	`4.3.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Core	`5.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Package.SDK	`1.3.2`	indirect
NuGet	Fable.Promise	`3.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	Falco.Markup	`1.4.0`	indirect
NuGet	Fli	`1.1000.0`	indirect
NuGet	FSharp.Control.TaskSeq	`1.1.1`	indirect
NuGet	FSharp.Core	`10.0.100`	indirect
NuGet	FSharp.UMX	`1.1.0`	indirect
NuGet	FsUnit.Light.xUnit	`1.1.0`	indirect
NuGet	Giraffe	`8.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	Giraffe.ViewEngine	`2.0.0-alpha-1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.AspNetCore.TestHost	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.Extensions.ObjectPool	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.IO.RecyclableMemoryStream	`3.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk	`18.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	ModelContextProtocol	`1.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	ModelContextProtocol.AspNetCore	`1.2.0`	indirect
NuGet	PipedAgents.MAF	`0.2.0-beta`	indirect
NuGet	SpanJson	`4.2.1`	indirect
NuGet	Thoth.Fetch	`3.0.1`	indirect
NuGet	TypeShape	`10.0.0`	indirect
NuGet	xunit.v3	`3.2.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 8

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 203 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 8 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
rollup	`4.55.3`	indirect	critical	1	`4.59.0`
seroval	`1.3.2`	indirect	critical	6	`1.5.3`
nanoid	`3.3.11`	indirect	high	2	`5.1.16`
picomatch	`4.0.3`	indirect	high	2	`4.0.4`
postcss	`8.5.6`	indirect	high	4	`8.5.23`
vite	`7.3.1`	indirect	high	5	`8.0.16`
@babel/helpers	`7.25.6`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.0.0-alpha.17`
@babel/core	`7.25.2`	indirect	low	1	`8.0.0-rc.6`

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records