Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 15:27 UTC

RevylAI / revyl-cli

CLI

GoNo license detected★ 510 stars⑂ 25 forkssince Aug 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolTerminal interfaceLibraryhow this is determined

RevylAI/revyl-cli holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (88/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Revyl AIOrganization

120 followers26 public repossince Jun 2023

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	revyl	0.1.96	2,841	63	11 days ago	android automation e2e ios mobile revyl testing

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

86Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
21.5/36	Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 319 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	319
human_commit_share	0
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	31

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 63 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~1.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	63
latest_release_tag	v0.1.96
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	11
mean_days_between_releases	1.7

Community & Adoption

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

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

55Moderate

How it's scored

43.9/60	Stars — 510 stars
11.5/25	Forks — 25 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	25
stars	510
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
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	no
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

58Moderate

How it's scored

46/80	Monthly downloads — 2,841 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	revyl
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,841
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

22At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.615

Issue & PR responsiveness

38Weak

How it's scored

28/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
10/30	PR acceptance — 3/9 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	3
open_issues	1
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.667
closed_unmerged_prs	6
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

62Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
15/25	Owner reach — 120 followers of RevylAI
16.8/25	Track record — 26 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	120
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	RevylAI
public_repos	26
account_age_days	1,170

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 11 days ago
20/20	Version history — 63 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	revyl
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.revyl.ai
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://docs.revyl.ai
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk

How it's scored

6/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
1.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	3.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Token-Permissions. 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.revyl.com/llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.revyl.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53/55	Manageable file sizes — 17/479 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	422,392
source_files_sampled	479
oversized_source_files	17

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — openapi.json
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	openapi.json
interfaces_expected_of	—

Key facts

510GitHub stars

3contributors

319commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

63releases

1bus factor

1open issues

Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch go package 'github.com/revyl/cli' from its registry
Could not fetch npm package '@revyl/cli' from its registry
pypi download statistics for 'revyl' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
pypi download figures for revyl carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 25 ⇿

0Stars

25Forks

57Releases

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 0Minor 0Patch 57

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10

3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 15:27 UTC

8	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
3	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 23

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/atotto/clipboard	`v0.1.4`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbles	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea	`v1.3.10`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss	`v1.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/log	`v0.4.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.9.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gorilla/websocket	`v1.5.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.20`	go.mod
Go	github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk	`v1.4.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/oapi-codegen/runtime	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.8.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.5`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tidwall/gjson	`v1.14.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tidwall/sjson	`v1.2.5`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel	`v1.44.0`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk	`v1.44.0`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace	`v1.44.0`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/proto/otlp	`v1.7.1`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.45.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/term	`v0.41.0`	go.mod
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.11`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	go.mod

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.

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 — PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records