Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 23:14 UTC

cyrus-and / gdb-dashboard

Modular visual interface for GDB in Python

PythonMIT★ 12,242 stars⑂ 818 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗

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.

35
overall / 100
Weak

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.

35
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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Andrea CardaciPersonal account
787 followers34 public repossince Apr 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

46Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 41 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence3/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18Commit volume4 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year4
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push41
active_weeks_last_year3
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases39 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 41 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~184.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count39
latest_release_tagv0.17.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release41
mean_days_between_releases184.6

Community & Adoption

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

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars12,242 stars
24.3/25Forks818 forks
13/15Watchers220 watchers
Inputs used
forks818
stars12,242
watchers220
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 95% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth21 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.949
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
10.6/30PR acceptance24/68 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs24
open_issues13
closed_issues254
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.951
closed_unmerged_prs44
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
20.8/25Owner reach787 followers of cyrus-and
23.2/25Track record34 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers787
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logincyrus-and
public_repos34
account_age_days5,243
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

25At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics19 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssubcommands, gdb-command, dashboard-styles, gdb-commands, divide, stylable-attributes, gdb, python, debugger, visual, dashboard, terminal, console, interface, tty, pygments, syntax-highlighting, ansi, assembly
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilesno dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifests
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

5Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.3/40Legible commit history23 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.23
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
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-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
0/55Manageable file sizesno source files detected
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes
source_files_sampled0
oversized_source_files0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

12,242GitHub stars
21contributors
4commits, last 12 months
41days since last push
39releases
1bus factor
13open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/cyrus-and/gdb-dashboard: run: RepoClient.LocalPath: error during tarballHandler.setup: internal error: handler.httpClient.Do: Get "https://codeload.github.com/cyrus-and/gdb-dashboard/legacy.tar.gz/refs/heads/master": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: dial tcp: lookup codeload.github.com on 127.0.0.11:53: server misbehaving); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 818 ⇿
0Stars
818Forks
39Releases

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.

02004006008001,000801662015-092021-022026-08
Major 0Minor 17Patch 22

Each point covers 10 days.

All dependencies 0

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.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 statistics.