Public recordGood
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 01:32 UTC
evaisse / the-great-analysis-challenge
A multi-language base application to test performance of static analysis
evaisse/the-great-analysis-challenge holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (25/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
65
overall / 100Software 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)
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
Emmanuel VaïssePersonal account
44 followers137 public repossince Oct 2008none
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| crates.io | chess-enginepoints to another repo — not scored | 0.1.2 | 619 | 3 | 1817 days ago | boardgameenginechessaigamesalgorithmsgame-enginesno-stdgame-development |
| npm | typescriptpoints to another repo — not scored | 7.0.2 | 1,051,829,036 | 3,828 | 72 days ago | typescriptmicrosoftcompilerlanguagejavascript |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
94
Development activity
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 5 days ago |
| 25.6/36 | Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 473 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 473 |
| human_commit_share | 0.98 |
| days_since_last_push | 5 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 37 |
Release discipline
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 91 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 5 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~7 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 91 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.0.92 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 5 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 7 |
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?
25
Popularity & adoption
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 1 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 1 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 0 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 1 |
| stars | 1 |
| watchers | 0 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
52Moderate
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 0/22.5 | License — no license file detected |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | no |
| readme_badges | 0 |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
49
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
20At Risk
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 2.2/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits |
| 2.7/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 2 contributors |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 2 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.902 |
How it's scored
| 40.4/42 | Issue resolution — 96% of issues closed |
| 23.8/30 | PR acceptance — 77/97 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 77 |
| open_issues | 3 |
| closed_issues | 73 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.961 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 20 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
59Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 11.9/25 | Owner reach — 44 followers of evaisse |
| 25/25 | Track record — 137 public repos, account ~17 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 44 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | evaisse |
| public_repos | 137 |
| account_age_days | 6,549 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
80
Engineering practices
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .flake8, .rubocop.yml, implementations/python/pyproject.toml ([tool.black]) |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
75Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | benchmark, chess, chess-engine, code, programming-language |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | — |
| docs_site | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
39
Security posture
39Weak
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 2.2/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 1.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 0/2.5 | License — license file not detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 1/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0.8/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3.9 |
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.
87
Agent context & guidance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs-prd.instructions.md, .github/instructions/implementations-wip.instructions.md, .github/instructions/implementations.instructions.md, .github/instructions/tests.instructions.md, .github/instructions/workflows.instructions.md, AGENTS.md |
| 15/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 95 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | yes |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.969 |
| agent_instruction_files | .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs-prd.instructions.md, .github/instructions/implementations-wip.instructions.md, .github/instructions/implementations.instructions.md, .github/instructions/tests.instructions.md, .github/instructions/workflows.instructions.md, AGENTS.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 17,072 |
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile, implementations/c/Makefile, implementations/crystal/Makefile, implementations/dart/Makefile, implementations/elixir/Makefile, implementations/elm/Makefile, implementations/gleam/Makefile, implementations/go/Makefile, implementations/haskell/Makefile, implementations/imba/Makefile, implementations/javascript/Makefile, implementations/julia/Makefile, implementations/kotlin/Makefile, implementations/lua/Makefile, implementations/nim/Makefile, implementations/php/Makefile, implementations/python/Makefile, implementations/rescript/Makefile, implementations/ruby/Makefile, implementations/rust/Makefile, implementations/swift/Makefile, implementations/typescript/Makefile, implementations/zig/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .flake8, .rubocop.yml, implementations/python/pyproject.toml ([tool.black]) |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — implementations/python/mypy.ini, implementations/typescript/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 2/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock, package-lock.json |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | Makefile, implementations/c/Makefile, implementations/crystal/Makefile, implementations/dart/Makefile, implementations/elixir/Makefile, implementations/elm/Makefile, implementations/gleam/Makefile, implementations/go/Makefile, implementations/haskell/Makefile, implementations/imba/Makefile, implementations/javascript/Makefile, implementations/julia/Makefile, implementations/kotlin/Makefile, implementations/lua/Makefile, implementations/nim/Makefile, implementations/php/Makefile, implementations/python/Makefile, implementations/rescript/Makefile, implementations/ruby/Makefile, implementations/rust/Makefile, implementations/swift/Makefile, implementations/typescript/Makefile, implementations/zig/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | implementations/python/mypy.ini, implementations/typescript/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | implementations/elixir/mix.exs, implementations/go/go.mod, implementations/kotlin/build.gradle.kts, implementations/rust/Cargo.toml |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed) |
| 53.2/55 | Manageable file sizes — 5/151 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | TypeScript |
| largest_source_bytes | 91,815 |
| source_files_sampled | 151 |
| oversized_source_files | 5 |
Key facts
1GitHub stars
2contributors
473commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
91releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npmpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch hex package 'chess_engine' from its registry
- crates package 'chess-engine' points at a different repository (https://github.com/adam-mcdaniel/chess-engine); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch npm package 'chess-engine-elm' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'chess-imba' from its registry
- Could not fetch packagist package 'chess/php-engine' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'chess-engine-rescript' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'chess-javascript' from its registry
- npm package 'typescript' points at a different repository (https://github.com/microsoft/TypeScript); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 3 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 6 | Contributors | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 0 | License | license file not detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 13 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 2 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 1 | Vulnerabilities | 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 1
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | shiki | ^3.14.0 | 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.
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 — crates.io, npm.