Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:06 UTC

Nadim147c / waybar-lyric

🎙️A waybar module for song lyrics

GoAGPL-3.0★ 42 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Nov 2024View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Nadim147c/waybar-lyric holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (40/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EphemeralPersonal account
10 followers49 public repossince Sep 2021172.0.0.1

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/Nadim147c/waybar-lyricv0.17.0-3319 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume278 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year278
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases14 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 18 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~27.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv0.17.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases27.6
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?

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
26.2/60Stars42 stars
5.8/25Forks6 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars42
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 98% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.98
How it's scored
39.2/42Issue resolution93% of issues closed
29.2/30PR acceptance107/110 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs107
open_issues1
closed_issues14
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.933
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
7.5/25Owner reach10 followers of Nadim147c
22.1/25Track record49 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginNadim147c
public_repos49
account_age_days1,769
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 19 days ago
20/20Version history33 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/Nadim147c/waybar-lyric
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yaml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsarchlinux, hyprland, linux, rice, waybar-module
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests6 out of 6 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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
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
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages44
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 44 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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 bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yaml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentNix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/38 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes5,720
source_files_sampled38
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
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

42GitHub stars
5contributors
278commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 17:06 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
10CI-Tests6 out of 6 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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/Nadim147c/fangv0.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/Nadim147c/go-mprisv0.10.1-0.20260430035150-283a6be93c96go.mod
Gogithub.com/carapace-sh/carapacev1.11.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/logv0.4.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/godbus/dbus/v5v5.2.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/gofrs/flockv0.13.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/castv1.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/texttheater/golang-levenshtein/levenshteinv0.0.0-20200805054039-cae8b0eaed6cgo.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0go.mod
All dependencies 44

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/carapace-sh/carapacev1.11.1direct
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.0direct
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/logv0.4.2direct
Gogithub.com/godbus/dbus/v5v5.2.2direct
Gogithub.com/gofrs/flockv0.13.0direct
Gogithub.com/nadim147c/fangv0.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/nadim147c/go-mprisv0.10.1-0.20260430035150-283a6be93c96direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/castv1.10.0direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogithub.com/texttheater/golang-levenshtein/levenshteinv0.0.0-20200805054039-cae8b0eaed6cdirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0direct
Gocharm.land/lipgloss/v2v2.0.0-beta.3.0.20251125170225-454007a0ad4eindirect
Gogithub.com/aymanbagabas/go-osc52/v2v2.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/carapace-sh/carapace-shlexv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/colorprofilev0.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/ultravioletv0.0.0-20260202174740-29fb72879c98indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/ansiv0.11.5indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/cellbufv0.0.15indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/charmtonev0.0.0-20260203065841-a1c614051099indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termiosv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/windowsv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/displaywidthv0.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/stringishv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2v2.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logfmt/logfmtv0.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorfulv1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.20indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.19indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/cancelreaderv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mangov0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mango-cobrav1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mango-pflagv0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/roffv0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/termenvv0.16.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10indirect
Gogithub.com/xo/terminfov0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20260112195511-716be5621a96indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 44 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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsGo.