Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 07:35 UTC

drpedapati / sciclaw

Paired-scientist AI assistant for reproducible research — lightweight Go runtime, lifecycle hooks, manuscript integration, 12 baseline scientific skills. PicoClaw-compatible.

GoCustom license★ 90 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfaceChat botTerminal interfacehow this is determined

drpedapati/sciclaw holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (92/100) and lowest on Security (28/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ernie PedapatiPersonal account
20 followers60 public repossince Apr 2016Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/sipeed/picoclawpoints to another repo — not scoredv0.3.1-17115 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

71Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 14 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 754 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year754
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push14
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 14 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~17.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.3.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release14
mean_days_between_releases17.1

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.6/60Stars — 90 stars
10/25Forks — 17 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars90
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 39 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled39
top_contributor_share0.816
How it's scored
32.8/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance — 23/28 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues22
closed_issues79
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d4
issue_closed_ratio0.782
closed_unmerged_prs5
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach — 20 followers of drpedapati
25/25Track record — 60 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindrpedapati
public_repos60
account_age_days3,848
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

92Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://sciclaw.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-assistant, golang, lifecycle-hooks, llm, paired-programming, picoclaw, quarto, reproducible-research, scientific-workflow, sciclaw, discord
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://sciclaw.dev
docs_sitehttps://sciclaw.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

28At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 89 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate2.8

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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .cursor/rules/sciclaw-papercuts.mdc, AGENTS.md, pkg/workspacetpl/templates/workspace/AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md, workspace/AGENT.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.cursor/rules/sciclaw-papercuts.mdc, AGENTS.md, pkg/workspacetpl/templates/workspace/AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md, workspace/AGENT.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,090
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, vendor/github.com/caarlos0/env/v11/Makefile, vendor/github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/cloudwego/base64x/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/proto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/protoc-gen-gogo/descriptor/Makefile, vendor/github.com/grbit/go-json/Makefile, vendor/github.com/mymmrac/telego/Taskfile.yml, vendor/github.com/slack-go/slack/Makefile, vendor/golang.org/x/arch/x86/x86asm/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 70 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, vendor/github.com/caarlos0/env/v11/Makefile, vendor/github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/cloudwego/base64x/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/proto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/protoc-gen-gogo/descriptor/Makefile, vendor/github.com/grbit/go-json/Makefile, vendor/github.com/mymmrac/telego/Taskfile.yml, vendor/github.com/slack-go/slack/Makefile, vendor/golang.org/x/arch/x86/x86asm/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsweb/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.7
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 4/382 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes99,824
source_files_sampled382
oversized_source_files4
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/gogo.proto
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesvendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/gogo.proto
interfaces_expected_ofchat-bot, network-service

Key facts

90GitHub stars
39contributors
754commits, last 12 months
14days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
22open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • go package 'github.com/sipeed/picoclaw' points at a different repository (https://github.com/sipeed/picoclaw); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 17 ⇿
0Stars
17Forks
99Releases

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.

0481216201742026-022026-052026-08
Major 0Minor 2Patch 23
OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
2.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 07:34 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
8CI-Tests5 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities89 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 24
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/adhocore/gronxv1.19.6go.mod
Gogithub.com/anthropics/anthropic-sdk-gov1.22.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/bogdanfinn/fhttpv0.5.27go.mod
Gogithub.com/bogdanfinn/tls-clientv1.7.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/bwmarrin/discordgov0.29.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/caarlos0/env/v11v11.3.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubblesv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubbleteav1.3.10go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/chzyer/readlinev1.5.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.18.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/larksuite/oapi-sdk-go/v3v3.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/mymmrac/telegov1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/open-dingtalk/dingtalk-stream-sdk-gov0.9.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/openai/openai-go/v3v3.22.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/refraction-networking/utlsv1.8.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/slack-go/slackv0.17.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/tencent-connect/botgov0.2.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.35.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
npmreact^19.2.4web/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.4web/package.json
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — Go.