Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 09:49 UTC

NPUniverseDev / npu-optimize

Hardware-aware CLI that detects NPUs/GPUs, finds compatible GGUF models, and recommends optimal llama.cpp inference configs

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

NPUniverseDev/npu-optimize holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (34/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

NPUniverseDevOrganization
1 follower2 public repossince Jul 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/Ericson246/npu-optimizepoints to another repo — not scoredv0.4.0-841 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume110 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year110
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 41 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~6.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release41
mean_days_between_releases6.3

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgoreportcard.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

34At Risk · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
24/42Issue resolution57% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance9/9 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs9
open_issues3
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.571
closed_unmerged_prs0
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of NPUniverseDev
3.8/25Track record2 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginNPUniverseDev
public_repos2
account_age_days66

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://npuniverse.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, inference, npu, optimization
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://npuniverse.com/
docs_sitehttps://npuniverse.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 2 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 0/27 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
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.4

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages27
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 2
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 27 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.

83Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history97 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes601
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/68 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes16,001
source_files_sampled68
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
110commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
3open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • go package 'github.com/Ericson246/npu-optimize' points at a different repository (https://github.com/Ericson246/npu-optimize); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 09:49 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 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 0/27 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
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/shirou/gopsutil/v3v3.24.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/shirou/gopsutil/v3v3.24.5direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1direct
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-ole/go-olev1.2.6indirect
Gogithub.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2v2.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/lufia/plan9statsv0.0.0-20211012122336-39d0f177ccd0indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2v2.2.4indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/power-devops/perfstatv0.0.0-20210106213030-5aafc221ea8cindirect
Gogithub.com/sagikazarmark/locaferov0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/shoenig/go-m1cpuv0.1.6indirect
Gogithub.com/sourcegraph/concv0.3.1-0.20240121214520-5f936abd7ae8indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/castv1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10indirect
Gogithub.com/subosito/gotenvv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tklauser/go-sysconfv0.3.12indirect
Gogithub.com/tklauser/numcpusv0.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/yusufpapurcu/wmiv1.2.4indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.29.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.28.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 27 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/sysv0.29.0indirectunknown10.44.0
golang.org/x/textv0.28.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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 statisticsGo.