Modular visual interface for GDB in Python
cyrus-and/gdb-dashboard holds a health index of 35 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (75/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 41 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 40 is calibrated to 35 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 41 days ago |
| 2.1/36 | Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits |
| 6.3/18 | Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data |
| commits_last_year | 4 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 41 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 3 |
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 39 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 41 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~184.6 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
| releases_count | 39 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.17.5 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 41 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 184.6 |
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
| 60/60 | Stars — 12,242 stars |
| 24.3/25 | Forks — 818 forks |
| 13/15 | Watchers — 220 watchers |
| forks | 818 |
| stars | 12,242 |
| watchers | 220 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 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 | yes |
| 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 |
| 1.1/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 95% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 21 contributors |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data |
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 21 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.949 |
| 39.9/42 | Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed |
| 10.6/30 | PR acceptance — 24/68 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 |
| merged_prs | 24 |
| open_issues | 13 |
| closed_issues | 254 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.951 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 44 |
| 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 |
| 20.8/25 | Owner reach — 787 followers of cyrus-and |
| 23.2/25 | Track record — 34 public repos, account ~14 yr old |
| followers | 787 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | cyrus-and |
| public_repos | 34 |
| account_age_days | 5,243 |
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 — no data |
| has_ci | no |
| has_tests | no |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 19 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
| topics | subcommands, gdb-command, dashboard-styles, gdb-commands, divide, stylable-attributes, gdb, python, debugger, visual, dashboard, terminal, console, interface, tty, pygments, syntax-highlighting, ansi, assembly |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | — |
| docs_site | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
| 0/30 | Security policy (SECURITY.md) |
| 0/25 | Dependabot config |
| 0/25 | Dependency lockfiles — no dependency manifests — not applicable |
| 0/20 | CodeQL workflow |
| source | file_signals |
| lockfiles | — |
| manifests | — |
| has_codeql_workflow | no |
| has_security_policy | no |
| has_dependabot_config | no |
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) |
| 12.3/40 | Legible commit history — 23 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.23 |
| 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 |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 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 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
| 0/45 | Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config |
| 0/55 | Manageable file sizes — no source files detected |
| primary_language | Python |
| largest_source_bytes | — |
| source_files_sampled | 0 |
| 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.
Each point covers 10 days.
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.