Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 02:28 UTC

Squirrel / Squirrel.Windows

An installation and update framework for Windows desktop apps

C++ · C#MIT★ 7,980 stars⑂ 1,049 forkssince Jul 2014View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationhow this is determined

Squirrel/Squirrel.Windows holds a health index of 29 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (83/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 764 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

29
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

29
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SquirrelOrganization
316 followers7 public repossince Oct 2013

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 764 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push764
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases53 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,160 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~134.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count53
latest_release_tag2.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,160
mean_days_between_releases134.1

Community & Adoption

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

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars7,980 stars
25/25Forks1,049 forks
13.1/15Watchers229 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,049
stars7,980
watchers229
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesdev.azure.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 76% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 37 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.758
How it's scored
30.8/42Issue resolution73% of issues closed
21.6/30PR acceptance301/418 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 7/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs301
open_issues368
closed_issues1,017
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.734
closed_unmerged_prs117
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
18/25Owner reach316 followers of Squirrel
18.6/25Track record7 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers316
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginSquirrel
public_repos7
account_age_days4,692

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswindows, squirrel, c-sharp, installer
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
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 7/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 37 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate2.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
5.8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories3 affected: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.2 (critical 9.8), SharpCompress 0.17.1 (moderate 5.9), SharpCompress 0.17.1.0 (moderate 5.9)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
26/40No advisories left outstanding3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,542 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories8
affected_packages4
assessed_packages25
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, moderate 3
direct_affected_packages3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 25 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
28.3/40Legible commit history53 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.53
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapsrc/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj, src/SyncReleases/SyncReleases.csproj, src/Update/Update-Mono.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj, src/SyncReleases/SyncReleases.csproj, src/Update/Update-Mono.csproj, src/Update/Update.csproj, test/Squirrel.Tests/Squirrel.Tests.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
48.5/55Manageable file sizes13/110 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes266,948
source_files_sampled110
oversized_source_files13
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

7,980GitHub stars
100contributors
0commits, last 12 months
764days since last push
53releases
1bus factor
368open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-18: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 7980 stars today.

More detail

Star and fork history 7,982 ★ / 1,049 ⇿
7,982Stars
1,049Forks
53Releases

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 2026-07-18. 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.

02,0004,0006,0008,0007,982969322014-082020-082026-08
Major 2Minor 12Patch 39

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.6 / 10
2.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 02:28 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 7/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 37 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Xdt3.1.0src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetMono.Cecil0.11.2src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetSharpCompress0.17.1.0src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetSystem.Net.Http4.3.4src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common5.0.2src/Squirrel/Squirrel.csproj
NuGetOctokit0.10.0.0src/SyncReleases/SyncReleases.csproj
NuGetILRepack1.26.0src/SyncReleases/SyncReleases.csproj
NuGetWpfAnimatedGif1.4.15.0src/Update/Update-Mono.csproj
NuGetILRepack1.26.0src/Update/Update-Mono.csproj
NuGetWpfAnimatedGif1.4.15.0src/Update/Update.csproj
NuGetILRepack1.26.0src/Update/Update.csproj
All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 11 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetILRepack1.26.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.CSharp4.7.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Xdt2.1.1direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Web.Xdt3.1.0direct
NuGetMicrosoft.Win32.Registry5.0.0direct
NuGetMono.Cecil0.11.2direct
NuGetMono.Cecil0.9.6.1direct
NuGetOctokit0.10.0.0direct
NuGetSharpCompress0.17.1direct
NuGetSharpCompress0.17.1.0direct
NuGetSystem.Drawing.Common5.0.2direct
NuGetSystem.Net.Http4.3.4direct
NuGetWpfAnimatedGif1.4.15direct
NuGetWpfAnimatedGif1.4.15.0direct
NuGetDeltaCompressionDotNet1.1.0indirect
NuGetDotNetZip1.9.1.8indirect
NuGetIx_Experimental-Main1.1.10823indirect
NuGetMicrosoft.NET.Test.Sdk15.8.0indirect
NuGetMono.Options1.1indirect
NuGetNLog2.0.0.2000indirect
NuGetreactiveui-core2.5.2.0indirect
NuGetSimpleJson0.38.0indirect
NuGetSplat1.6.2indirect
NuGetxunit2.0.0indirect
NuGetxunit.runner.visualstudio2.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 25 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
System.Drawing.Common5.0.2directcritical15.0.3
SharpCompress0.17.1directmoderate30.48.0
SharpCompress0.17.1.0directmoderate30.48.0
DotNetZip1.9.1.8indirectmoderate11.11.0

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 statistics.