Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 21:00 UTC

SeemSeam / claude_codex_bridge

Visible multi-agent CLI workspace for mixing Codex, Claude, Gemini, Kimi, Qwen, Cursor, Copilot, Pi, OpenCode, and other AI coding agents

Python · DartCustom license★ 3,493 stars⑂ 341 forkssince Oct 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolMobile applicationLibraryhow this is determined

SeemSeam/claude_codex_bridge holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SeemSeamPersonal account
59 followers61 public repossince Jun 2017

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 publishTags
npm@seemseam/ccb8.6.167,273853 days agoccbmulti-agentcodexclaudegeminigrokkimideepseekmimoqwencursorcopilotcrushkiropizaiopencodetmuxcli

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,863 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,863
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year39
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv8.6.16
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases2.6

Community & Adoption

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

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
57.5/60Stars — 3,493 stars
21.1/25Forks — 341 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks341
stars3,493
watchers12
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
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_badges19
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51.5/80Monthly downloads — 7,273 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@seemseam/ccb
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads7,273
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?

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 46 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled46
top_contributor_share0.819
How it's scored
20.8/42Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance — 141/175 decided PRs merged
12.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 16/17 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs141
open_issues69
closed_issues68
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d6
prs_merged_30d29
prs_decided_30d32
issue_closed_ratio0.496
closed_unmerged_prs34
first_time_authors_30d7
first_time_prs_merged_30d16
first_time_prs_decided_30d17
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.8/25Owner reach — 59 followers of SeemSeam
25/25Track record — 61 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers59
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginSeemSeam
public_repos61
account_age_days3,386
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 85 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@seemseam/ccb
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-collaboration, claude-code, cli, codex, gemini, multi-agent-systems, terminal, opencode, multi-agent-cli, ai-coding, antigravity, coding-agent, crush, cursor-agent, github-copilot, kimi, kiro, pi-coding-agent, qwen-code, tmux
has_wikiyes
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?

25At 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 — 6 out of 6 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
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 10 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
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 — 20 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate2.5

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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .clinerules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 99 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.99
agent_instruction_files.clinerules
agent_instruction_max_bytes756
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/manuals/developer-guide/Makefile, docs/manuals/user-guide/Makefile, tools/codex-reconnect/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — 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
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdocs/manuals/developer-guide/Makefile, docs/manuals/user-guide/Makefile, tools/codex-reconnect/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsmobile/app/android/app/build.gradle.kts, mobile/app/android/build.gradle.kts, mobile/app/third_party/file_picker/android/build.gradle, mobile/app/third_party/flutter_plugin_android_lifecycle/android/build.gradle.kts, mobile/app/third_party/open_filex/android/build.gradle, platforms/windows/launcher/Cargo.toml, rust/Cargo.toml, rust/crates/ccb-runtime-accelerator/Cargo.toml, tools/ccb-agent-sidebar/Cargo.toml, tools/ccb-rs-helper/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.7/55Manageable file sizes — 65/2,740 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes622,594
source_files_sampled2,740
oversized_source_files65
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — demos
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos
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

3,493GitHub stars
46contributors
1,863commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
69open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-22: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 3493 stars today.
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 3,301 ★ / 341 ⇿
3,301Stars
341Forks
96Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-22. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

01,2502,5003,7503,301339662025-122026-042026-09
Major 1Minor 11Patch 83
OpenSSF Scorecard 2.5 / 10
2.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 21:00 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
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
2Code-ReviewFound 6/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 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
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
0Vulnerabilities20 existing vulnerabilities detected
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 — npm.