Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 11:31 UTC

degory / ghul

compiler for the ghūl programming language

Shell · C#AGPL-3.0★ 5 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2017View on GitHub ↗

degory/ghul holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

degoryPersonal account
1 follower27 public repossince Apr 2015

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume735 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year735
human_commit_share0
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv36.4.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.2

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars5
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.996
How it's scored
38.6/42Issue resolution92% of issues closed
27.7/30PR acceptance1,190/1,290 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs1,190
open_issues68
closed_issues765
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.918
closed_unmerged_prs100
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of degory
22.5/25Track record27 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logindegory
public_repos27
account_age_days4,159
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://ghul.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsghul, compiler, programming-language, dotnet, dotnet-core
has_wikino
homepagehttps://ghul.dev
docs_sitehttps://ghul.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Reviewno data
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review. 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,836
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapcross-assembly-tests/attribute-constructor-omitted-optionals/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/covariant-redeclared-members/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/cross-asm-const-field/lib/lib.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer
10/10Demonstrated agent practice68 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
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_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.68
toolchain_manifestscross-assembly-tests/attribute-constructor-omitted-optionals/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/covariant-redeclared-members/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/cross-asm-const-field/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/cs-test-assembly/cs-test-assembly.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/default-argument-call-position/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/generic-constraint-imported/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/generic-constraint-multi-bound-imported/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/generic-constraint-multi-bound-violation/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/generic-constraint-new-imported/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/import-default-trait-method/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/inherited-generic-members/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/named-arguments-reflected-default/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/null-generic-overload-inference/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/nullable-imported/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/nullable-interop/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/protected-cross-assembly-access/cslib/cslib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/record-members-visible/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/tuple-names-from-csharp/lib/lib.csproj, cross-assembly-tests/underscore-cross-assembly-access/cslib/cslib.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeShell without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageShell
largest_source_bytes2,015
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5GitHub stars
2contributors
735commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
68open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 11:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 30 changesets
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
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.