An advanced guide which might benefit you a lot 🎉 . 人生进阶指南 离谱的人生 离谱的英语学习指南/英语学习教程/英语学习/学英语
byoungd/up holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (65/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (26/100). It was last updated 35 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
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.
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
| 18/36 | Push recency — last push 35 days ago |
| 7.6/36 | Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits |
| 14.4/18 | Commit volume — 39 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 24 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| commits_last_year | 39 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 35 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 11 |
| 0/27 | Ships releases — no releases published |
| 0/36 | Release recency — no releases |
| 0/27 | Release cadence — no releases |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
| releases_count | 0 |
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
| 60/60 | Stars — 57,291 stars |
| 25/25 | Forks — 5,867 forks |
| 15/15 | Watchers — 951 watchers |
| forks | 5,867 |
| stars | 57,291 |
| watchers | 951 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 6.4/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 28 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 28 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.716 |
| 32.3/42 | Issue resolution — 77% of issues closed |
| 20.2/30 | PR acceptance — 31/46 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 1.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| merged_prs | 31 |
| open_issues | 30 |
| closed_issues | 100 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.769 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 15 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 24.7/25 | Owner reach — 2,693 followers of byoungd |
| 21.1/25 | Track record — 17 public repos, account ~10 yr old |
| followers | 2,693 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | byoungd |
| public_repos | 17 |
| account_age_days | 3,896 |
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
| 0/24 | CI workflows |
| 0/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| has_ci | no |
| has_tests | no |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://token.love |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 3 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
| topics | chinese, tutorial, english-learning |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://token.love |
| docs_site | https://token.love |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0.8/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 0/2.5 | License — license file not detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 24 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 13 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 5 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3.7 |
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.
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 36.3/40 | Legible commit history — 68 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.68 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
| 0/18 | One-command bootstrap |
| 0/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 0/11 | Static type checking |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 6/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | no |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | no |
| bootstrap_files | — |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0.03 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/1 source files over 60KB |
| primary_language | JavaScript |
| largest_source_bytes | 6,191 |
| source_files_sampled | 1 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
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.
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0 | CI-Tests | 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 1 | Code-Review | Found 5/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| n/a | Dangerous-Workflow | no workflows found |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 0 | License | license file not detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 24 commit(s) and 8 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| n/a | Pinned-Dependencies | no dependencies found |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| n/a | Token-Permissions | No tokens found |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|
Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess
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.