Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 19:22 UTC

ganesshkumar / obsidian-excel-to-markdown-table

An Obsidian plugin to paste data from Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets, Apple Numbers and LibreOffice Calc as Markdown tables in Obsidian editor.

TypeScript · JavaScriptMIT★ 254 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Feb 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryPluginhow this is determined

ganesshkumar/obsidian-excel-to-markdown-table holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Ganessh KumarPersonal account
49 followers82 public repossince Aug 2012

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?

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 20 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases8 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,533 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~19.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count8
latest_release_tag0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,533
mean_days_between_releases19.5

Community & Adoption

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

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39/60Stars254 stars
7/25Forks8 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars254
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
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?

37Weak · 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: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution25% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance8/8 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs8
open_issues12
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs0
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.2/25Owner reach49 followers of ganesshkumar
25/25Track record82 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers49
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginganesshkumar
public_repos82
account_age_days5,130
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics11 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsobsidian, obsidian-md, obsidian-plugin, excel, microsoft-excel, libreoffice-calc, apple-numbers, google-sheets, markdown, plugin, clipboard
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories7
affected_packages6
assessed_packages76
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 4, moderate 2
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 76 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes6,380
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

254GitHub stars
1contributors
1commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
8releases
1bus factor
12open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'obsidian-excel-to-markdown-table' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
3Releases

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.

02468822022-042024-022026-01
Major 0Minor 3Patch 0

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.2 / 10
2.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 19:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 76

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 76 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@nodelib/fs.scandir2.1.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.stat2.0.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.walk1.2.8indirect
npm@types/codemirror0.0.108indirect
npm@types/estree0.0.50indirect
npm@types/json-schema7.0.9indirect
npm@types/node16.11.21indirect
npm@types/tern0.23.4indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/scope-manager5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/type-utils5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/types5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/typescript-estree5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/utils5.10.2indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/visitor-keys5.10.2indirect
npmarray-union2.1.0indirect
npmbraces3.0.2indirect
npmbuiltin-modules3.2.0indirect
npmdebug4.3.3indirect
npmdir-glob3.0.1indirect
npmesbuild0.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-android-arm640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-darwin-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-darwin-arm640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-freebsd-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-freebsd-arm640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-320.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-arm0.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-arm640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-mips64le0.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-linux-ppc64le0.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-netbsd-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-openbsd-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-sunos-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-windows-320.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-windows-640.13.12indirect
npmesbuild-windows-arm640.13.12indirect
npmeslint-scope5.1.1indirect
npmeslint-utils3.0.0indirect
npmeslint-visitor-keys2.1.0indirect
npmeslint-visitor-keys3.2.0indirect
npmesrecurse4.3.0indirect
npmestraverse4.3.0indirect
npmestraverse5.3.0indirect
npmfast-glob3.2.11indirect
npmfastq1.13.0indirect
npmfill-range7.0.1indirect
npmfunctional-red-black-tree1.0.1indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmglobby11.1.0indirect
npmignore5.2.0indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmlru-cache6.0.0indirect
npmmerge21.4.1indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.4indirect
npmmoment2.29.3indirect
npmms2.1.2indirect
npmobsidian0.15.1indirect
npmpath-type4.0.0indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.1indirect
npmqueue-microtask1.2.3indirect
npmregexpp3.2.0indirect
npmreusify1.0.4indirect
npmrun-parallel1.2.0indirect
npmsemver7.3.5indirect
npmslash3.0.0indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmtslib1.14.1indirect
npmtslib2.3.1indirect
npmtsutils3.21.0indirect
npmtypescript4.4.4indirect
npmyallist4.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 76 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
braces3.0.2indirecthigh13.0.3
moment2.29.3indirecthigh12.29.4
picomatch2.3.1indirecthigh24.0.4
semver7.3.5indirecthigh17.5.2
esbuild0.13.12indirectmoderate10.25.0
micromatch4.0.4indirectmoderate14.0.8

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.

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.