Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.6.0 · 2026-08-15 19:04 UTC

earthtojake / text-to-cad

A library of agent skills for CAD, CAE and CAM

Python · JavaScriptMIT★ 13,463 stars⑂ 1,424 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗

earthtojake/text-to-cad holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

earthtojakePersonal account
377 followers18 public repossince Jan 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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 871 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year871
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tag0.4.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases0.4
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?

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 13,463 stars
25/25Forks — 1,424 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 74 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,424
stars13,463
watchers74
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges12
has_contributingyes
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.902
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.7/30PR acceptance — 177/224 decided PRs merged
3.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/4 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs177
open_issues0
closed_issues39
prs_merged_7d50
prs_decided_7d60
prs_merged_30d50
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs47
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d4
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach — 377 followers of earthtojake
21.3/25Track record — 18 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers377
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginearthtojake
public_repos18
account_age_days4,217
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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 site — https://www.texttocad.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagents, ai-agents, cad, text-to-cad, mechanical-engineering, robotics, step, stl, stp
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.texttocad.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 26 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): signed_releases. 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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 73 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.83
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes15,783
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — skills/cad-viewer/scripts/viewer/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/dxf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/implicit-cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/sdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/srdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/urdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 26 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
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsskills/cad-viewer/scripts/viewer/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/dxf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/implicit-cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/sdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/srdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/urdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.26
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (skills/cad-viewer/scripts/viewer/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/dxf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/implicit-cad/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/sdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/srdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed, skills/urdf/scripts/packages/cadgen/src/cadgen/py.typed)
53.1/55Manageable file sizes — 28/807 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes1,297,579
source_files_sampled807
oversized_source_files28

Key facts

13,463GitHub stars
10contributors
871commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,424 ⇿
0Stars
1,424Forks
33Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

05001,0001,5001,424552026-052026-072026-08
Major 0Minor 2Patch 31
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-15 19:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 4/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 26 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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
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

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 v2.6.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.