Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 23:10 UTC

cordiverse / cordis

Meta-Framework of Spatiotemporal Composability

TypeScriptMIT★ 8,268 stars⑂ 510 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

cordiverse/cordis holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (58/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CordiverseOrganization · verified domain
519 followers26 public repossince Dec 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@cordisjs/plugin-hmr1.1.01,524281 day agocordispluginhmrhotmodulereplacementreloadwatchdevelopment
npmcordis4.0.0-rc.10107,8291661 day ago
npm@cordisjs/plugin-group1.0.01,6891169 days ago
npm@cordisjs/plugin-timer1.1.34,308811 days agocordistimerserviceplugin
npmcreate-cordis0.3.024216129 days agocordisapplicationcreatescaffoldtemplategeneratorboilerplate
npm@cordisjs/plugin-loader1.0.0-rc.727,770141 day agocordisloaderconfigbootstrapservice
npm@cordisjs/plugin-include1.1.05,20071 day ago
npm@cordisjs/plugin-logger-console1.0.01,9801120 days agocordisloggerconsoleplugin

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18Commit volume90 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year90
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv4.0.0-rc.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases10
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars8,268 stars
22.6/25Forks510 forks
8.5/15Watchers35 watchers
Inputs used
forks510
stars8,268
watchers35
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
69/80Monthly downloads150,542 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@cordisjs/plugin-hmr, cordis, @cordisjs/plugin-group, @cordisjs/plugin-timer, create-cordis, @cordisjs/plugin-loader, @cordisjs/plugin-include, @cordisjs/plugin-logger-console
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads150,542
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.96
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
14/30PR acceptance28/60 decided PRs merged
5.4/13Newcomer PR acceptance7/17 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs28
open_issues9
closed_issues36
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d19
prs_merged_30d15
prs_decided_30d40
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs32
first_time_authors_30d11
first_time_prs_merged_30d7
first_time_prs_decided_30d17
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
19.5/25Owner reach519 followers of cordiverse
16/25Track record26 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers519
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logincordiverse
public_repos26
account_age_days1,011

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable8 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history166 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@cordisjs/plugin-hmr, cordis, @cordisjs/plugin-group, @cordisjs/plugin-timer, create-cordis, @cordisjs/plugin-loader, @cordisjs/plugin-include, @cordisjs/plugin-logger-console
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/reference/cordis-primer
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsframework, nodejs, effect, plugin
has_wikino
homepagehttps://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/reference/cordis-primer
docs_sitehttps://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/reference/cordis-primer
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages2
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:cordis@4.0.0-rc.10 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 packages. 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://deepseek-harness.github.io/deepseek-harness/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.yml
11/11Static type checkingpackages/core/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/core/tsconfig.json, packages/create/tsconfig.json, packages/group/tsconfig.json, packages/hmr/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/hmr/tsconfig.json, packages/include/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/include/tsconfig.json, packages/loader/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/loader/tsconfig.json, packages/logger-console/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/logger-console/tsconfig.json, packages/timer/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/timer/tsconfig.json, packages/utils/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspackages/core/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/core/tsconfig.json, packages/create/tsconfig.json, packages/group/tsconfig.json, packages/hmr/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/hmr/tsconfig.json, packages/include/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/include/tsconfig.json, packages/loader/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/loader/tsconfig.json, packages/logger-console/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/logger-console/tsconfig.json, packages/timer/tests/tsconfig.json, packages/timer/tsconfig.json, packages/utils/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/81 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes40,805
source_files_sampled81
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

8,268GitHub stars
12contributors
90commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
9open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 21 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 510 ⇿
0Stars
510Forks
1Releases

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.

01002003004005006005092262022-082024-082026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 23:10 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@standard-schema/spec^1.1.0packages/core/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/core/package.json
npmenv-paths^3.0.0packages/create/package.json
npmget-registry^1.2.0packages/create/package.json
npmjs-yaml^4.1.1packages/create/package.json
npmkleur^4.1.5packages/create/package.json
npmprompts^2.4.2packages/create/package.json
npmtar^7.5.10packages/create/package.json
npmwhich-pm-runs^1.1.0packages/create/package.json
npmyargs-parser^21.1.1packages/create/package.json
npm@babel/code-frame^7.29.0packages/hmr/package.json
npmchokidar^4.0.3packages/hmr/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/hmr/package.json
npmpicomatch^4.0.3packages/hmr/package.json
npmschemastery^3.18.0packages/hmr/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/include/package.json
npmjs-yaml^4.1.0packages/include/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/loader/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/logger-console/package.json
npmschemastery^3.18.0packages/logger-console/package.json
npmsupports-color^9.4.0packages/logger-console/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/timer/package.json
npmcosmokit^1.8.1packages/utils/package.json
All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 16 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/code-frame^7.29.0direct
npm@standard-schema/spec^1.1.0direct
npmchokidar^4.0.3direct
npmcosmokit^1.8.1direct
npmenv-paths^3.0.0direct
npmget-registry^1.2.0direct
npmjs-yaml^4.1.0direct
npmjs-yaml^4.1.1direct
npmkleur^4.1.5direct
npmpicomatch^4.0.3direct
npmprompts^2.4.2direct
npmschemastery^3.18.0direct
npmsupports-color^9.4.0direct
npmtar^7.5.10direct
npmwhich-pm-runs^1.1.0direct
npmyargs-parser^21.1.1direct
npm@cordisjs/eslint-config^1.1.1indirect
npm@cordisjs/plugin-hmr^1.1.0indirect
npm@cordisjs/plugin-include^1.1.0indirect
npm@cordisjs/plugin-loader^1.0.0-rc.7indirect
npm@cordisjs/plugin-logger-console^1.0.0indirect
npm@cordisjs/plugin-timer^1.1.3indirect
npm@cordisjs/unyaml^2.0.3indirect
npm@cordiverse/tsx4.19.3-fix.3indirect
npm@types/babel__code-frame^7.27.0indirect
npm@types/js-yaml^4.0.9indirect
npm@types/node^25.3.5indirect
npm@types/picomatch^3.0.2indirect
npm@types/prompts^2.4.9indirect
npm@types/tar^6.1.13indirect
npm@types/which-pm-runs^1.0.2indirect
npm@types/yargs-parser^21.0.3indirect
npm@vitest/coverage-v8^4.1.5indirect
npmcordis^4.0.0-rc.10indirect
npmesbuild^0.27.3indirect
npmesbuild^0.28.0indirect
npmeslint^8.57.1indirect
npmshx^0.4.0indirect
npmtypescript^5.9.3indirect
npmvite^7.3.2indirect
npmvitest^4.1.5indirect
npmyakumo^3.2.1indirect
npmyakumo-esbuild^3.0.2indirect
npmyakumo-tsc^3.0.1indirect
npmyakumo-vitest^1.3.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:cordis@4.0.0-rc.10 pulls in 2 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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 statisticsnpm.