Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 01:52 UTC

fpvandoorn / carleson

A formalized proof of Carleson's theorem in Lean

Lean · TeXApache-2.0★ 111 stars⑂ 43 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗
#lean4

fpvandoorn/carleson holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Floris van DoornPersonal account
145 followers84 public repossince Apr 2014University of Bonn

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?

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

90Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 216 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_year216
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year38

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 40 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 26 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~23.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count40
latest_release_tagv4.34.0-rc2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release26
mean_days_between_releases23.1
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?

66Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

49Weak
How it's scored
33.1/60Stars — 111 stars
13.5/25Forks — 43 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks43
stars111
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

64Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 33 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled33
top_contributor_share0.333

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance — 600/645 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs600
open_issues1
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d15
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.9
closed_unmerged_prs45
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

63Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.6/25Owner reach — 145 followers of fpvandoorn
25/25Track record — 84 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers145
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginfpvandoorn
public_repos84
account_age_days4,532
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

44Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://florisvandoorn.com/carleson/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicslean4
has_wikino
homepagehttp://florisvandoorn.com/carleson/
docs_sitehttp://florisvandoorn.com/carleson/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

60Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

50Moderate
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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 22 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/5Packaging — no data
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories20
affected_packages5
assessed_packages106
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 5
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 106 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 93 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.949
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Lean without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageLean
largest_source_bytes1,106
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

111GitHub stars
33contributors
216commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
40releases
2bus factor
1open issues
PyPI, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 43 ⇿
0Stars
43Forks
39Releases

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.

010203040504242024-042025-062026-08
Major 0Minor 19Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-09-19 01:52 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 22 contributing companies or organizations
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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities22 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 106

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 106 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIinvoke1.7.1indirect
PyPIwatchfiles0.16.1indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.1.3.4indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.2.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.1.8indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script-source1.11.1indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscommonmarker0.23.10indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.10indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsdnsruby1.61.9indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsethon0.15.0indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsexecjs2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_synchrony1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-excon1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-httpclient1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-patron1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-rack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsffi1.15.5indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgemoji3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages228indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages-health-check1.17.9indirect
RubyGemshtml-pipeline2.14.3indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.5indirect
RubyGemsjekyll3.9.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-avatar0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-coffeescript1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark-ghpages0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-default-layout0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.15.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-gist1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-github-metadata2.13.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-include-cache0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-mentions1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-optional-front-matter0.3.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-paginate1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-readme-index0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-relative-links0.6.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-swiss1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-architect0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-cayman0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-dinky0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-hacker0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-leap-day0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-merlot0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-midnight0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-minimal0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-modernist0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-primer0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-slate0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-tactile0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-time-machine0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-titles-from-headings0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjemoji0.12.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.3.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsminima2.5.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.15.0indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.1.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.18.9indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.22.0indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.26.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass3.7.4indirect
RubyGemssass-listen4.0.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.8.2indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table1.8.0indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.4.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunf0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunf_ext0.0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.8.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 106 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport7.1.3.4indirecthigh38.1.2.1
addressable2.8.0indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.1.10indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday1.10.0indirecthigh22.14.3
nokogiri1.18.9indirecthigh111.19.4

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 fpvandoorn/carleson. Read them side by side →

73AxiomMath/axiom-lean-engineLean evaluation and metaprogramming utilities for provers.Good56alerad/lean-runtimeModerate42sthamann/tfptTopological Fixed-Point Theory: a machine-checked discrete compiler for the Standard Model, α⁻¹, and cosmology from two axioms. Papers, verification suite (Python/Wolfram/Lean), experiments & website.Weak94leanprover-community/mathlib4The math library of Lean 4Exceptional91google-deepmind/formal-conjecturesA collection of formalized statements of conjectures in Lean.Excellent88leanprover/lean4Lean 4 programming language and theorem proverExcellent

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.