Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-01 05:06 UTC

The-Billy-Company / gist

The fastest CLI and agent-first code search tool, built on indexed trigram search with aggressive literal-match optimizations

Zig · PythonApache-2.0★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

The-Billy-Company/gist holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (80/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Billy CompanyOrganization
5 followers11 public repossince Jul 2025

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

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 9 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 429 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year429
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv1.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases5.1

Community & Adoption

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

47Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
47.4/80Monthly downloads — 3,568 downloads/month across crates, go, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/The-Billy-Company/gist/bindings/go, gist-search, gist-search
dependents—
ecosystemscrates, go, pypi
total_downloads139
monthly_downloads3,568
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.971
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
22.5/30PR acceptance — 15/20 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of The-Billy-Company
10.3/25Track record — 11 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginThe-Billy-Company
public_repos11
account_age_days445

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates, go, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 9 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/The-Billy-Company/gist/bindings/go, gist-search, gist-search
ecosystemscrates, go, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml, bindings/python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), bindings/rust/Cargo.toml ([lints]), clippy.toml, ruff.toml, rustfmt.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.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_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/The-Billy-Company/gist/blob/main/bindings/rust/README.md
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscli, code-search, codesearch, command-line-tool, developer-tools, find-in-files, full-text-search, grep, indexed-search, neovim-plugin, pattern-matching, regex, ripgrep, ripgrep-alternative, search, source-code-search, static-analysis, text-search, trigram-index, zig
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://github.com/The-Billy-Company/gist/blob/main/bindings/rust/README.md
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

72Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.5

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages46
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 46 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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 85 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.966
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — .mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml, bindings/python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), bindings/rust/Cargo.toml ([lints]), clippy.toml, ruff.toml, rustfmt.toml
11/11Static type checking — bindings/python/gist/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, go.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files.mise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsbindings/python/gist/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbindings/go/go.mod, bindings/rust/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Zig with type-check config (bindings/python/gist/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/112 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageZig
largest_source_bytes38,615
source_files_sampled112
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
3contributors
429commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
0open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-01 05:05 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all 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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/The-Billy-Company/irregex/bindings/gov1.0.0bindings/go/go.mod
PyPIirregex>=2.5.0,<3bindings/python/pyproject.toml
crates.ioirgx2.5.0bindings/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1bindings/rust/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1bindings/rust/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 43 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioserde1.0.228direct
crates.ioserde_json1.0.150direct
Gogithub.com/the-billy-company/irregex/bindings/gov1.0.0direct
crates.iobitflags2.13.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.4.1indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.186indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.3indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.106indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.46indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.4indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.228indirect
crates.ioserde_spanned1.1.1indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.118indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iotoml1.1.4+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_datetime1.1.1+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_parser1.1.3+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iotoml_writer1.1.2+spec-1.1.0indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
crates.iowinnow1.0.4indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.22indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIhatchling1.31.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIruff0.16.0indirect
PyPItrove-classifiers2026.6.1.19indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 46 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go, crates.io, PyPI.