Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 14:10 UTC

elidickinson / cc-session-io

Read, write, and create Claude Code session files. Can be used to generate a session history that can be resumed by claude. (unofficial)

TypeScriptMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

elidickinson/cc-session-io holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (59/100) and lowest on Security (25/100). It was last updated 39 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

44
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.

44
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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Eli DickinsonPersonal account
42 followers69 public repossince Jan 2009

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 publishTags
npmcc-session-io0.4.033,746839 days agoclaudeclaude-codesessionresume

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

59Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 39 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence5/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume30 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push39
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 39 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~23.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release39
mean_days_between_releases23.7

Community & Adoption

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

38Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars3
watchers0
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
How it's scored
60.4/80Monthly downloads33,746 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescc-session-io
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads33,746
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11.7/25Owner reach42 followers of elidickinson
25/25Track record69 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers42
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginelidickinson
public_repos69
account_age_days6,460
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 39 days ago
20/20Version history8 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescc-session-io
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish39

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfilespackage-lock.json
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilespackage-lock.json
manifestspackage.json
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history12 of 30 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 30
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes28,245
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
1contributors
30commits, last 12 months
39days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage 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
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/elidickinson/cc-session-io: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-15T14:10:25Z. Please include `D6A6:2D868D:A94DA04:A507351:6AA951CF` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212026-052026-052026-05
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 statisticsnpm.