Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 05:05 UTC

alyssaxuu / screenity

The free and privacy-friendly screen recorder with no limits 🎥

JavaScriptGPL-3.0★ 18,464 stars⑂ 1,486 forkssince Nov 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfacehow this is determined

alyssaxuu/screenity holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Security (22/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alyssa XPersonal account
9,861 followers17 public repossince May 2014

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?

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 7 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence29/52 weeks with commits
16.3/18Commit volume64 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained25 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year64
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases79 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 7 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~4.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count79
latest_release_tagv4.6.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release7
mean_days_between_releases4.3

Community & Adoption

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

82Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars18,464 stars
25/25Forks1,486 forks
12.2/15Watchers160 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,486
stars18,464
watchers160
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)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

41Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
40.8/42Issue resolution97% of issues closed
8.5/30PR acceptance15/53 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues7
closed_issues245
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.972
closed_unmerged_prs38
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
25/25Owner reach9,861 followers of alyssaxuu
21.1/25Track record17 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers9,861
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginalyssaxuu
public_repos17
account_age_days4,465
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter configeslint.config.mjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://screenity.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics16 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsscreen-capture, screencast, recorder, annotation, design, productivity, video, editor, javascript, chrome-extension, camera, screen-recorder, audio, annotation-tool, ffmpeg, tensorflow
has_wikino
homepagehttps://screenity.io
docs_sitehttps://screenity.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained25 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities89 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, 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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0.8/40Legible commit history1 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.015
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configeslint.config.mjs
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 66
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
53.4/55Manageable file sizes9/307 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes269,701
source_files_sampled307
oversized_source_files9

Key facts

18,464GitHub stars
1contributors
64commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
79releases
1bus factor
7open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'screenity' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,486 ⇿
0Stars
1,486Forks
69Releases

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.

05001,0001,5001,486362022-022024-052026-07
Major 1Minor 7Patch 61

Each point covers 5 days.

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 · 2026-08-05 05:05 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained25 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities89 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 44
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@babel/plugin-transform-react-jsx^7.27.1package.json
npm@mediapipe/tasks-vision0.10.32package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-alert-dialog^1.0.4package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-collapsible^1.0.2package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-dropdown-menu^2.0.6package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-popover^1.0.5package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-select^1.2.1package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-slider^1.1.2package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-switch^1.0.2package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-tabs^1.0.3package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-toast^1.2.13package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-toggle^1.1.8package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-toggle-group^1.1.9package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-toolbar^1.1.9package.json
npm@radix-ui/react-tooltip^1.2.6package.json
npm@sentry/browser^7.94.1package.json
npm@uiw/color-convert^1.2.2package.json
npm@uiw/react-color-wheel^1.2.2package.json
npmaxios^1.6.2package.json
npmconcurrently^8.2.0package.json
npmdotenv^17.0.1package.json
npmdriver.js^1.3.6package.json
npmfabric^6.9.1package.json
npmfix-webm-duration^1.0.5package.json
npmgif.js^0.2.0package.json
npmjszip^3.10.1package.json
npmlocalforage^1.10.0package.json
npmmediabunny^1.46.0package.json
npmpatch-package^8.0.0package.json
npmplyr3.7.8package.json
npmplyr-react^5.3.0package.json
npmquerystring^0.2.1package.json
npmraw-loader^4.0.2package.json
npmreact^18.2.0package.json
npmreact-advanced-cropper^0.19.4package.json
npmreact-dom^18.2.0package.json
npmreact-hotkeys-hook^4.4.1package.json
npmreact-rnd^10.4.1package.json
npmreact-shadow^20.0.0package.json
npmreact-svg^16.1.18package.json
npmssestream^1.1.0package.json
npmtar7.5.9package.json
npmwavesurfer.js^7.4.2package.json
npmwebm-duration-fix^1.0.4package.json
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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.