# chaterm/Chaterm — health index 80/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository chaterm/Chaterm by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/chaterm/Chaterm
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/chaterm/Chaterm
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/chaterm/Chaterm/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/c/chaterm/Chaterm.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 99/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 66/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 65/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 84/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 85/100 | Excellent |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 70/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Open source AI terminal for cloud and infrastructure management, enabling you to deploy, troubleshoot, and automate services using natural language and intelligent agents. |
| Homepage | https://chaterm.ai |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| Stars | 3,036 |
| Forks | 286 |
| Created | 2025-04-14 |
| Last push | 2026-07-22 |
| Latest release | v0.12.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 4,267 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | cursor, cyberark, terminal, windsurf, aiagent, security, ssh, sre, bastion, pam, vibe-coding, vibecoding, codex-cli, putty, devops |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | chaterm | — | 0 |

## Vitality — 99/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 35.3 / 36 | 51/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 4267 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 66 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 18 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | met | 10 / 10 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 6 signed artifacts. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 66/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 56.5 / 60 | 3,036 stars |
| Forks | partial | 20.5 / 25 | 286 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.5 / 15 | 77 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | not met | 0 / 80 | 0 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 65/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 12.2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 46% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 54 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 33.4 / 46.8 | 71% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 35.1 / 38.2 | 1995/2173 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 42/100 (At risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 14.2 / 25 | 92 followers of chaterm |
| Track record | partial | 9.1 / 25 | 7 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Publish recency. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | excluded | 0 / 35 | no data |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 0 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 84/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 11 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://chaterm.ai |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 15 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 85/100 (Excellent)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 6 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | partial | 1.2 / 2.5 | badge detected: Passing |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 6 signed artifacts. |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 15 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 72/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1304 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 14 / 35 | 2 affected: adm-zip 0.5.18 (high 7.5), dompurify 3.4.11 (low) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | met | 40 / 40 | no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 70/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 34.8 / 40 | 47 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 9 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.6 / 55 | 18/725 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 20/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt