anmaslov / simple-rag
anmaslov/simple-rag holds a health index of 7 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (61/100) and lowest on Security (5/100). It was last updated 34 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
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.
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 39 is calibrated to 34 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
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?
Development activity
How it's scored
| 18/36 | Push recency — last push 34 days ago |
| 2.8/36 | Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits |
| 11.1/18 | Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 16 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 34 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 4 |
Release discipline
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 5 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 34 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~6.8 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 5 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.0.3 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 34 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 6.8 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
Popularity & adoption
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
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?
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
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 — no data |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 1 |
| top_contributor_share | 1 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 30/30 | PR acceptance — 2/2 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 2 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 0 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Ownership & stewardship
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 7.2/25 | Owner reach — 9 followers of anmaslov |
| 21.3/25 | Track record — 18 public repos, account ~15 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 9 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | anmaslov |
| public_repos | 18 |
| account_age_days | 5,738 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
Engineering practices
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 1 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | 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 | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 0/10 | 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 | no |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
Security posture
High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected
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 assessedHow it's scored
| 0/30 | Security policy (SECURITY.md) |
| 0/25 | Dependabot config |
| 25/25 | Dependency lockfiles — go.sum, package-lock.json |
| 0/20 | CodeQL workflow |
Inputs used
| source | file_signals |
| lockfiles | go.sum, package-lock.json |
| manifests | backend/go.mod, frontend/package.json |
| has_codeql_workflow | no |
| has_security_policy | no |
| has_dependabot_config | no |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_cap | 34 |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier | 20 |
| security_posture_after_multiplier | 5 |
| security_posture_before_jurisdiction | 25 |
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.
Agent context & guidance
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 | — |
How it's scored
| 12.6/18 | One-command bootstrap — backend/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — frontend/tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 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 | yes |
| lockfiles | go.sum, package-lock.json |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | frontend/tsconfig.json |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | backend/go.mod |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Code legibility for models
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/63 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 18,217 |
| source_files_sampled | 63 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Key facts
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (Skipping github.com/anmaslov/simple-rag: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: non-200 OK status code: 503 Service Unavailable body: "{\"message\": \"No server is currently available to service your request. Sorry about that. Please try resubmitting your request and contact us if the problem persists.\"}\r\n"); skipping Scorecard checks
More detail
Direct dependencies 17
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/Masterminds/squirrel | v1.5.4 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | github.com/go-chi/chi/v5 | v5.2.3 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | github.com/jackc/pgx/v5 | v5.7.6 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | github.com/prometheus/client_golang | v1.22.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp | v0.60.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel | v1.35.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracegrpc | v1.35.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk | v1.35.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace | v1.35.0 | backend/go.mod |
| Go | golang.org/x/net | v0.41.0 | backend/go.mod |
| npm | @vitejs/plugin-vue | ^6.0.1 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | pinia | ^3.0.3 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | typescript | ^5.9.3 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | vite | ^7.2.2 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | vue | ^3.5.24 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | vue-router | ^4.6.3 | frontend/package.json |
| npm | vue-tsc | ^3.1.5 | frontend/package.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.
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.