Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 19:49 UTC

LinwoodDev / Butterfly

🎨 Powerful, minimalistic, cross-platform, opensource note-taking app

DartAGPL-3.0★ 2,015 stars⑂ 148 forkssince Dec 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationMobile applicationhow this is determined

LinwoodDev/Butterfly holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

LinwoodOrganization · verified domain
90 followers26 public repossince Aug 2022

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
34.6/36Commit cadence — 50/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 952 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year952
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year50
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,790 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~-192.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagnightly
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,790
mean_days_between_releases-192.5

Community & Adoption

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

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.6/60Stars — 2,015 stars
18.1/25Forks — 148 forks
7/15Watchers — 19 watchers
Inputs used
forks148
stars2,015
watchers19
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 22 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled22
top_contributor_share0.979
How it's scored
39.2/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance — 498/582 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs498
open_issues42
closed_issues583
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d10
prs_decided_30d13
issue_closed_ratio0.933
closed_unmerged_prs84
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
14.1/25Owner reach — 90 followers of LinwoodDev
18.7/25Track record — 26 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers90
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginLinwoodDev
public_repos26
account_age_days1,505

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://butterfly.linwood.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsflutter, app, notes-app, android, linux, windows, opensource, customizable, web, dart, drawing, cross-platform, note, notes, onenote, dartlang, note-taking, writing, productivity
has_wikino
homepagehttps://butterfly.linwood.dev
docs_sitehttps://butterfly.linwood.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages117
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 117 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
9.6/40Legible commit history — 18 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.18
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — app/android/app/build.gradle.kts, app/android/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — docs/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsdocs/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsapp/android/app/build.gradle.kts, app/android/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Dart (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 7/487 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageDart
largest_source_bytes144,944
source_files_sampled487
oversized_source_files7

Key facts

2,015GitHub stars
22contributors
952commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
42open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 148 ⇿
0Stars
148Forks
98Releases

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.

025507510012515014752022-042024-062026-09
Major 0Minor 5Patch 18

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 19:49 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
5CI-Tests2 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 26 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane—app/android/Gemfile
RubyGemsscreengrab—app/android/Gemfile
RubyGemsabbrev—app/android/Gemfile
All dependencies 117

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 114 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2direct
RubyGemsfastlane2.238.0direct
RubyGemsscreengrab1.0.0direct
npm@pnpm/exe.android-arm6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.android-x6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-arm6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-x6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.freebsd-x6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm64-musl12.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-ppc6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-riscv6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-s390x12.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x64-musl12.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-arm6412.4.1indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-x6412.4.1indirect
npmpnpm12.4.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1286.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.256.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.132.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.232.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20260907indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.7.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.108.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.67.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.2.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.4indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.3.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.2indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 117 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.