Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 12:26 UTC

OpenCSGs / csglite

CSGLite is a lightweight local LLM inference platform. One command downloads, loads, and chats with models. It ships a web UI, OpenAI-compatible API, llama.cpp inference, resumable downloads, marketplace browsing, and one-click AI app and coding-agent setup—all in a single cross-platform binary.

Go · TypeScriptCustom license★ 49 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfaceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

OpenCSGs/csglite holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (29/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

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

Ownership

OpenCSGOrganization
670 followers40 public repossince Dec 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/opencsgs/csglitev0.9.91-2495 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.2/36Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 671 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year671
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year32
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.9.91
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases3.4

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.3/60Stars — 49 stars
8.3/25Forks — 11 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks11
stars49
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.947
How it's scored
35.9/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 68/71 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs68
open_issues22
closed_issues130
prs_merged_7d11
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d21
prs_decided_30d22
issue_closed_ratio0.855
closed_unmerged_prs3
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
0/20Verified domain
20.3/25Owner reach — 670 followers of OpenCSGs
17.5/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers670
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginOpenCSGs
public_repos40
account_age_days1,044

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 249 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/opencsgs/csglite
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 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
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsinference, ai-gateway, ollama-api, cc-switch
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

29At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 32 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/ai-app-oss-mirror.mdc, .cursor/rules/api-swagger-sync.mdc, .cursor/rules/commit-release-notes.mdc, .cursor/rules/common-agent-guidelines.mdc, .cursor/rules/config-schema.mdc, .cursor/rules/cross-platform.mdc, .cursor/rules/frontend-i18n.mdc, .cursor/rules/gitlab-token-source.mdc, .cursor/rules/go-conventions.mdc, .cursor/rules/llama-cpp-version-lockstep.mdc, .cursor/rules/llama-cuda-gitlab-mirror.mdc, .cursor/rules/local-preview-port-11436.mdc, .cursor/rules/manual-local-release.mdc, .cursor/rules/model-source-routing.mdc, .cursor/rules/network-proxy.mdc, .cursor/rules/platform-sensitive-files.mdc, .cursor/rules/python-compatibility.mdc, .cursor/rules/storage-temp-files.mdc, .cursor/rules/user-scope-app-installs.mdc, .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/ai-app-oss-mirror.mdc, .cursor/rules/api-swagger-sync.mdc, .cursor/rules/commit-release-notes.mdc, .cursor/rules/common-agent-guidelines.mdc, .cursor/rules/config-schema.mdc, .cursor/rules/cross-platform.mdc, .cursor/rules/frontend-i18n.mdc, .cursor/rules/gitlab-token-source.mdc, .cursor/rules/go-conventions.mdc, .cursor/rules/llama-cpp-version-lockstep.mdc, .cursor/rules/llama-cuda-gitlab-mirror.mdc, .cursor/rules/local-preview-port-11436.mdc, .cursor/rules/manual-local-release.mdc, .cursor/rules/model-source-routing.mdc, .cursor/rules/network-proxy.mdc, .cursor/rules/platform-sensitive-files.mdc, .cursor/rules/python-compatibility.mdc, .cursor/rules/storage-temp-files.mdc, .cursor/rules/user-scope-app-installs.mdc, .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,260
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsweb/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 13/574 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes406,388
source_files_sampled574
oversized_source_files13

Key facts

49GitHub stars
6contributors
671commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
22open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿
0Stars
11Forks
78Releases

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.

0246810121122026-042026-062026-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 77
OpenSSF Scorecard 2.9 / 10
2.9aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 12:26 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 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 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 14 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities32 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/xptyv0.1.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/opencsgs/llama-cpp-assetsv0.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/pion/mdns/v2v2.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/pion/opusv0.1.1-0.20260914225119-00c5c6e17c7ego.mod
Gogithub.com/pion/webrtc/v4v4.2.20go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.50.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.41.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.38.2go.mod
npm@preact/signals^2.0.2web/package.json
npm@xterm/addon-fit^0.11.0web/package.json
npm@xterm/xterm^6.0.0web/package.json
npmmarkdown-it^14.1.1web/package.json
npmpreact^10.25.4web/package.json
npmpreact-iso^2.11.1web/package.json
npmswagger-ui-dist^5.32.1web/package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — Go.