Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 12:38 UTC

XxxXTeam / codex-proxy

Codex API 代理服务,提供 OpenAI / Claude 多协议兼容接口 用户交流群 : 1081291958

Go · TypeScriptGPL-3.0★ 163 stars⑂ 24 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

XxxXTeam/codex-proxy holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (50/100). It was last updated 4 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

XxxXTeamOrganization
110 followers62 public repossince Oct 2025

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume163 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year163
human_commit_share0.56
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases18 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 30 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~14.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv1.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases14.5

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.8/60Stars163 stars
11.3/25Forks24 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks24
stars163
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 71% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.713
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
23/30PR acceptance49/64 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs49
open_issues0
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs15
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
14.7/25Owner reach110 followers of XxxXTeam
14.8/25Track record62 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers110
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginXxxXTeam
public_repos62
account_age_days329

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configeslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained21 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities37 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.7

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages38
unassessed_packages28
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 38 resolved dependencies against OSV. 28 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.3/40Legible commit history35 of 56 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.625
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configeslint.config.js
11/11Static type checkingweb/apps/web/tsconfig.json, web/packages/ui/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance26 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsweb/apps/web/tsconfig.json, web/packages/ui/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.26
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
53/55Manageable file sizes4/109 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes349,145
source_files_sampled109
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

163GitHub stars
4contributors
163commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 24 ⇿
0Stars
24Forks
14Releases

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.

048121620242452026-032026-052026-07
Major 0Minor 8Patch 6
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 12:38 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 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 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained21 commit(s) and 0 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
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
0Vulnerabilities37 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 16
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/fasthttp/routerv1.5.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/fasthttp/websocketv1.5.12go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-sql-driver/mysqlv1.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/lib/pqv1.12.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24go.mod
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tidwall/gjsonv1.19.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tidwall/sjsonv1.2.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/tiktoken-go/tokenizerv0.8.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasthttpv1.73.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.56.0go.mod
All dependencies 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 50 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/fasthttp/routerv1.5.4direct
Gogithub.com/fasthttp/websocketv1.5.12direct
Gogithub.com/go-sql-driver/mysqlv1.10.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/lib/pqv1.12.3direct
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24direct
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.10.0direct
Gogithub.com/tidwall/gjsonv1.19.0direct
Gogithub.com/tidwall/sjsonv1.2.5direct
Gogithub.com/tiktoken-go/tokenizerv0.8.1direct
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasthttpv1.73.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0direct
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1direct
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.56.0direct
Gofilippo.io/edwards25519v1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/andybalholm/brotliv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/dlclark/regexp2/v2v2.7.1indirect
Gogithub.com/dustin/go-humanizev1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.19.2indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/prettyv0.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/ncruces/go-strftimev1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/remyoudompheng/bigfftv0.0.0-20230129092748-24d4a6f8daecindirect
Gogithub.com/rogpeppe/go-internalv1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/savsgio/gotilsv0.0.0-20250924091648-bce9a52d7761indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/matchv1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/prettyv1.2.1indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/bytebufferpoolv1.0.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/check.v1v1.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6cindirect
Gomodernc.org/libcv1.75.3indirect
Gomodernc.org/mathutilv1.7.1indirect
Gomodernc.org/memoryv1.12.0indirect
npm@eslint/js^10indirect
npm@fontsource-variable/geist^5.2.9indirect
npm@tailwindcss/vite^4indirect
npm@turbo/gen^2.9.15indirect
npm@types/node^24indirect
npm@types/react^19indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19indirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-react^6indirect
npm@workspace/ui*indirect
npmclass-variance-authority^0.7.1indirect
npmclsx^2.1.1indirect
npmeslint^10indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-hooks^7.1.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-react-refresh^0.5.2indirect
npmglobals^17indirect
npmlucide-react^1.21.0indirect
npmprettier3.9.6indirect
npmprettier-plugin-tailwindcss0.8.1indirect
npmradix-ui^1.6.0indirect
npmreact^19.2.6indirect
npmreact-dom^19.2.6indirect
npmshadcn^4.11.0indirect
npmtailwind-merge^3.6.0indirect
npmtailwindcss^4indirect
npmturbo2.10.10indirect
npmtw-animate-css^1.4.0indirect
npmtypescript~6indirect
npmtypescript~6.0.3indirect
npmtypescript-eslint^8indirect
npmvite^8indirect
npmzod^4.4.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 28 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.