Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 21:16 UTC

bluebear-io / angry-bear

Enforce skill-loading requirements for AI coding agents

GoMIT★ 17 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolTerminal interfacehow this is determined

bluebear-io/angry-bear holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (50/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Bluebear SecurityOrganization · verified domain

1 follower8 public repossince Jul 2025

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/bluebear-io/angry-bear	v0.13.1	-	16	38 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

62Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
4.2/36	Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
16.2/18	Commit volume — 62 commits in the last year
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

commits_last_year	62
human_commit_share	0.935
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	6

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~12.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	16
latest_release_tag	v0.13.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	38
mean_days_between_releases	12.3

Community & Adoption

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

50Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

20At Risk

How it's scored

19.5/60	Stars — 17 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	17
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% 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	0.983

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.2/30	PR acceptance — 31/33 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	31
open_issues	0
closed_issues	1
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

61Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
2.2/25	Owner reach — 1 followers of bluebear-io
9.2/25	Track record — 8 public repos, account ~1 yr old

Inputs used

followers	1
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	bluebear-io
public_repos	8
account_age_days	407

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 38 days ago
20/20	Version history — 16 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/bluebear-io/angry-bear
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	38

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 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	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://bluebear.io/projects/angry-bear
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	coding-agent-skills
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://bluebear.io/projects/angry-bear
docs_site	https://bluebear.io/projects/angry-bear
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

52Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/27 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
4.5/7.5	Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	5.2

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	2
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	36
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	unknown 2
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 36 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.

95Exceptional · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://bluebear.io/llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 57 of 58 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://bluebear.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.983
agent_instruction_files	CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	3,890

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

90Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 36 of the last 62 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 62 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.581
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.065

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.3/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/76 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	72,750
source_files_sampled	76
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

17GitHub stars

2contributors

62commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

16releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10

5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 21:15 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/27 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
6	Maintained	7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8	Vulnerabilities	2 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/bmatcuk/doublestar/v4	`v4.10.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea	`v1.3.10`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/huh	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss	`v1.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.10.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gofrs/flock	`v0.13.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/natefinch/atomic	`v1.0.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/bmatcuk/doublestar/v4	`v4.10.0`	direct
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea	`v1.3.10`	direct
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/huh	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss	`v1.1.0`	direct
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.10.1`	direct
Go	github.com/gofrs/flock	`v0.13.0`	direct
Go	github.com/natefinch/atomic	`v1.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/atotto/clipboard	`v0.1.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/aymanbagabas/go-osc52/v2	`v2.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/catppuccin/go	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbles	`v0.21.1-0.20250623103423-23b8fd6302d7`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/colorprofile	`v0.2.3-0.20250311203215-f60798e515dc`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/ansi	`v0.10.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/cellbuf	`v0.0.13`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/strings	`v0.0.0-20240722160745-212f7b056ed0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/term	`v0.2.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/dustin/go-humanize	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/erikgeiser/coninput	`v0.0.0-20211004153227-1c3628e74d0f`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/text	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorful	`v1.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.20`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-localereader	`v0.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-runewidth	`v0.0.16`	indirect
Go	github.com/mitchellh/hashstructure/v2	`v2.0.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/ansi	`v0.0.0-20230316100256-276c6243b2f6`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/cancelreader	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/termenv	`v0.16.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rivo/uniseg	`v0.4.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal	`v1.14.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.9`	indirect
Go	github.com/xo/terminfo	`v0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41e`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.37.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.23.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 36 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.37.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`
golang.org/x/text	`v0.23.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.39.0`

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 v0.34.0 — 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

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records