Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 18:43 UTC

andreychh / tgen

Turns the Telegram Bot API HTML documentation into ready-to-use API bindings.

Python · GoMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#cli #cli-tool #code-generator #codegen #go #golang #html-parser #telegram #telegram-bot-api

andreychh/tgen holds a health index of 11 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated today. 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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Andrey ChernykhPersonal account

7 followers12 public repossince May 2023

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/andreychh/tgen	v0.4.6	-	14	5 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36	Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 459 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	459
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	23

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~13.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	14
latest_release_tag	v0.4.6
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	5
mean_days_between_releases	13.9

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 2 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	2
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
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	yes
readme_badges	—
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

15Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.834

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good

How it's scored

38.6/42	Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
29/30	PR acceptance — 150/155 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	150
open_issues	6
closed_issues	69
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.92
closed_unmerged_prs	5
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

39Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.5/25	Owner reach — 7 followers of andreychh
14.5/25	Track record — 12 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	7
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	andreychh
public_repos	12
account_age_days	1,169

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20	Version history — 14 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/andreychh/tgen
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cli, cli-tool, code-generator, codegen, go, golang, html-parser, telegram, telegram-bot-api
has_wiki	no
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?

30At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

13Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 software.redFlag.role.ownerRussia1 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
4.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	6.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	20
security_posture_after_multiplier	13
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	65

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	35
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 35 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.

44Weak · 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)

73Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — .config/mise.toml, Taskfile.yml, stands/go/mise.toml, stands/python/mise.toml
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	.config/mise.toml, Taskfile.yml, stands/go/mise.toml, stands/python/mise.toml
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. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
53.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 5/250 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	506,840
source_files_sampled	250
oversized_source_files	5

Key facts

2GitHub stars

2contributors

459commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

14releases

1bus factor

6open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

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 · 2026-07-20 18:43 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	9 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: InProgress
0	Code-Review	Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/PuerkitoBio/goquery	`v1.12.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/iancoleman/strcase	`v0.3.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap	`v1.0.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/iancoleman/strcase	`v0.3.0`	direct
Go	github.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap	`v1.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/puerkitobio/goquery	`v1.12.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	github.com/andybalholm/cascadia	`v1.3.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.9`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.55.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.13.0`	indirect
PyPI	ast-serialize	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.4.22`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.15`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	librt	`0.11.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mypy-extensions	`1.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	stand	`0.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 35 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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records