Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 05:03 UTC

eugenelim / agent-ready-repo

The complete AI operating model for software teams — from first idea to production. Three peer-supervised loops (discovery → build → release) over a catalogue of curated packs: skills, subagents, and hooks, each installed in one line. It's npm for your coding agent. Any agent, any stack — Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, Kiro.

PythonApache-2.0★ 22 stars⑂ 5 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#agent-skills#agentic-ai#agentic-coding#ai-agents#ai-code-review#ai-workflows#claude-code#code-review#coding-agents#cursor#github-copilot#loop-engineering#marketplace#package-manager#plugins#spec-driven-development#subagents#ai-coding#vibe-coding#context-engineering

eugenelim/agent-ready-repo holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Vitality (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

eugenelimPersonal account
17 followers17 public repossince Nov 2010@Accenture

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
PyPIcredbroker0.6.01,249737 days ago
PyPIagentbundle0.46.12,521611 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

47Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

77Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 2,941 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year2,941
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

26At Risk
How it's scored
21.4/60Stars — 22 stars
5/25Forks — 5 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars22
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

60Moderate
How it's scored
47.7/80Monthly downloads — 3,770 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagescredbroker, agentbundle
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,770
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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

15Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 1,297/1,335 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1,297
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d52
prs_decided_7d53
prs_merged_30d59
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs38
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.

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9/25Owner reach — 17 followers of eugenelim
21.1/25Track record — 17 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logineugenelim
public_repos17
account_age_days5,791
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescredbroker, agentbundle
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 17 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://eugenelim.github.io/agent-ready-repo/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent-skills, agentic-ai, agentic-coding, ai-agents, ai-code-review, ai-workflows, claude-code, code-review, coding-agents, cursor, github-copilot, loop-engineering, marketplace, package-manager, plugins, spec-driven-development, subagents, ai-coding, vibe-coding, context-engineering
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://eugenelim.github.io/agent-ready-repo/
docs_sitehttps://eugenelim.github.io/agent-ready-repo/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

68Good
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.8
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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, docs-site/AGENTS.md, docs-site/CLAUDE.md, docs/AGENTS.md, docs/CLAUDE.md, docs/product/AGENTS.md, docs/product/CLAUDE.md, guides/AGENTS.md, guides/CLAUDE.md, packages/AGENTS.md, packages/CLAUDE.md, packages/_example/AGENTS.md, packages/_example/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/packs/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/packs/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/profiles/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/profiles/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/brownfield-adapt-expected/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/brownfield-adapt/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/external_catalogue/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/external_catalogue/packs/alpha/seeds/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/scaffold/test-pack/seeds/AGENTS.md, packages/credbroker/AGENTS.md, packages/credbroker/CLAUDE.md, packs/AGENTS.md, packs/CLAUDE.md, packs/core/AGENTS.md, packs/core/CLAUDE.md, packs/core/seeds/AGENTS.md, packs/core/seeds/docs/AGENTS.md, packs/frontend-engineering/AGENTS.md, packs/frontend-engineering/CLAUDE.md, packs/monorepo-extras/seeds/packages/_example/AGENTS.md, profiles/AGENTS.md, profiles/CLAUDE.md, tests/AGENTS.md, tests/CLAUDE.md, tools/AGENTS.md, tools/CLAUDE.md, web/AGENTS.md, web/CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, docs-site/AGENTS.md, docs-site/CLAUDE.md, docs/AGENTS.md, docs/CLAUDE.md, docs/product/AGENTS.md, docs/product/CLAUDE.md, guides/AGENTS.md, guides/CLAUDE.md, packages/AGENTS.md, packages/CLAUDE.md, packages/_example/AGENTS.md, packages/_example/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/packs/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/packs/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/profiles/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/agentbundle/_data/catalogue-scaffold/profiles/CLAUDE.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/brownfield-adapt-expected/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/brownfield-adapt/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/external_catalogue/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/external_catalogue/packs/alpha/seeds/AGENTS.md, packages/agentbundle/tests/fixtures/scaffold/test-pack/seeds/AGENTS.md, packages/credbroker/AGENTS.md, packages/credbroker/CLAUDE.md, packs/AGENTS.md, packs/CLAUDE.md, packs/core/AGENTS.md, packs/core/CLAUDE.md, packs/core/seeds/AGENTS.md, packs/core/seeds/docs/AGENTS.md, packs/frontend-engineering/AGENTS.md, packs/frontend-engineering/CLAUDE.md, packs/monorepo-extras/seeds/packages/_example/AGENTS.md, profiles/AGENTS.md, profiles/CLAUDE.md, tests/AGENTS.md, tests/CLAUDE.md, tools/AGENTS.md, tools/CLAUDE.md, web/AGENTS.md, web/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes10,338

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

80Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — docs-site/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdocs-site/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

79Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (docs-site/tsconfig.json, web/tsconfig.json)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes — 70/1,355 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes246,982
source_files_sampled1,355
oversized_source_files70

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples, recipes, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples, recipes, samples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

22GitHub stars
2contributors
2,941commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'credbroker' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download statistics for 'agentbundle' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'jsonl-otlp-exporter' from its registry
  • pypi download figures for credbroker carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
  • pypi download figures for agentbundle carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿
0Stars
5Forks

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.

2334455522026-062026-072026-08
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 05:02 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@astrojs/markdown-remark7.3.0docs-site/package.json
npm@astrojs/starlight0.42.0docs-site/package.json
npm@fontsource-variable/inter5.3.0docs-site/package.json
npm@fontsource-variable/source-serif-45.3.0docs-site/package.json
npm@fontsource/jetbrains-mono5.3.0docs-site/package.json
npmastro7.3.1docs-site/package.json
npmmermaid11.17.2docs-site/package.json
npmunist-util-visit5.1.0docs-site/package.json
npm@astrojs/sitemap3.7.4web/package.json
npm@fontsource-variable/inter5.3.0web/package.json
npm@fontsource/jetbrains-mono5.3.0web/package.json
npmastro7.3.1web/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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with eugenelim/agent-ready-repo. Read them side by side →

96sickn33/agentic-awesome-skillsAAS Core is the local, agent-first control plane for complete catalog discovery, agent-owned selection, stack validation, and planning, backed by 2,115+ agentic skills. Includes CLI, local MCP, catalog, plugins, and Workbench.Exceptional96microsoft/apmAgent Package ManagerExceptional93Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodeTeams-first Multi-agent orchestration for Claude CodeExceptional93affaan-m/ECCThe agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond.Exceptional95Q00/ouroborosAgent OS: the agent gets smarter on its own. We just hold the line: Interview-gated, staged evaluation, budgeted evolution loop. MCP server, 14 runtimes: Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Copilot, Kiro and more.Exceptional93agent-of-empires/agent-of-empiresManage multiple Claude Code, OpenCode agents from either TUI or Web for easy access on mobile. Also supports Mistral Vibe, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, Pi.dev, Copilot CLI, Factory Droid Coding.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.