# Vadims06/topolograph — health index 62/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository Vadims06/topolograph by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/Vadims06/topolograph
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/Vadims06/topolograph
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/Vadims06/topolograph/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/v/Vadims06/topolograph.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-04
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 80/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 53/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 48/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 69/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 44/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 24/100 | At Risk |

The weighted overall 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Topolograph.com is an online project which can visualize OSPF/ISIS topology based on LSDB output from a single network device. Then you can not only see (and check) the shortest path from source to destination, but also see the outcome from link or node failure along the path to the destination. |
| Homepage | https://topolograph.com |
| Primary language | Smarty |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 238 |
| Forks | 31 |
| Created | 2019-06-11 |
| Last push | 2026-09-02 |
| Latest release | v2.69.2 |
| Commits (last year) | 22 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | ospf, topology-visualization, topology-optimization, topology-graph, network, cisco, juniper, mikrotik, quagga, nokia, huawei, paloaltonetworks, ubiquity, isis-algorithms, ericsson, extreme, yaml-visualizer, frr, ruckus, ruckusnetworks |

## Vitality — 80/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 66/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 8.3 / 36 | 12/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 12.2 / 18 | 22 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 9 / 10 | 9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 71 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 2 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~5.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 3 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 53/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 38.5 / 60 | 238 stars |
| Forks | partial | 12.3 / 25 | 31 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 4.3 / 15 | 7 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 48/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 15/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 0.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 96% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 5.4 / 13.5 | 4 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 76/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 36.5 / 42 | 87% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 4/4 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 59/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 12.9 / 25 | 62 followers of Vadims06 |
| Track record | partial | 24 / 25 | 44 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 69/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 48/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://topolograph.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 20 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 44/100 (Weak)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 44/100 (Weak)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 1/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 9 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 24/100 (At Risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 5/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 5.3 / 40 | 10 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 22/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Smarty without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/2 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 33/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- No resolved dependencies carried a version and a supported ecosystem

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt