Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 16:35 UTC

UniSecurityGuard / UniSecurityGuard

本科华五，曾赴美qs50读博，某兄弟院校副教授，校园门卫亭女性主理人，为防止炸号的备份平台，是本人。

No license detected★ 892 stars⑂ 11 forksgrowth anomalysince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗

UniSecurityGuard/UniSecurityGuard holds a health index of 13 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (24/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (1/100). It was last updated 241 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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 18 is calibrated to 13 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

副高女保Personal account

429 followers1 public reposince Dec 2025

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

9Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

14Critical

How it's scored

3.6/36	Push recency — last push 241 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9/18	Commit volume — 9 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	9
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	241
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

1Critical

How it's scored

0/27	Ships releases — no releases published
0/36	Release recency — no releases
0/27	Release cadence — no releases
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count

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

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

23At Risk

Growth anomaly alert

Inorganic growth pattern detected

544 stars in 3 days, 158× the baseline2026-01-14 → 2026-01-16Star concentration — nearly all growth on a handful of daysThe project has never published a releasePopularity & adoption: stars and forks discounted by 70%

Based on the timing of public star and fork events. It describes a pattern that organic attention does not produce; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.

How growth authenticity is assessed

How it's scored

14.4/60	Stars — 892 stars, discounted for inorganic growth: 544 stars over 3 day(s) from 2026-01-14 → 2026-01-16, 158× the repository's own daily baseline
2.5/25	Forks — 11 forks, discounted for inorganic growth: 544 stars over 3 day(s) from 2026-01-14 → 2026-01-16, 158× the repository's own daily baseline
6/15	Watchers — 13 watchers

Inputs used

forks	11
stars	892
watchers	13
growth_state	highly_anomalous
growth_signals	acquisition_burst, star_concentration, no_released_substance
growth_windows	2025-12-27/2025-12-29, 2026-01-14/2026-01-16
growth_peak_days	3
growth_factor_pct	30
growth_peak_stars	544
growth_peak_window	2026-01-14 → 2026-01-16
growth_peak_multiple	158
growth_top_days_share	0.801
growth_baseline_per_day	2
growth_history_complete	yes

Inorganic Growth Policy discounts the stars and forks components by 70%. The finding describes the timing of public star and fork events; it does not establish that attention was purchased, or that the maintainers were involved.

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	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

18Critical · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

5Critical

How it's scored

4.2/42	Issue resolution — 10% of issues closed
0/30	PR acceptance — 0/1 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	155
closed_issues	17
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.099
closed_unmerged_prs	1
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

41Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.9/25	Owner reach — 429 followers of UniSecurityGuard
3.6/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	429
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	UniSecurityGuard
public_repos	1
account_age_days	259

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

21At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	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	no
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

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

22At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
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 0/9 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
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	2.2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, 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.

1Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
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)

1Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

892GitHub stars

1contributors

9commits, last 12 months

241days since last push

0releases

1bus factor

155open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Language breakdown unavailable
Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Star history carried forward from 2026-06-13: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 892 stars today.
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 895 ★ / 11 ⇿

895Stars

11Forks

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-06-13. 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.

The shaded bands mark the bursts the Inorganic Growth Policy confirmed. How growth authenticity is assessed

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.2 / 10

2.2aggregate

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 16:35 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
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 0/9 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
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 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.

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.