Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-26 13:26 UTC

grey-pre-server / mod_dict

MIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗

grey-pre-server/mod_dict holds a health index of 17 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Vitality (59/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (1/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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 22 is calibrated to 17 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

grey-pre-serverPersonal account

0 followers1 public reposince Nov 2020

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?

59Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

39Weak

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0.7/36	Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18	Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	1

Release discipline

88Excellent

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 36 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~1.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	36
latest_release_tag	v0.8.28
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	1.1

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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	0
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

13Critical · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	0
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): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

30At Risk

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of grey-pre-server
13.8/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	grey-pre-server
public_repos	1
account_age_days	2,121

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

1Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

1Critical

How it's scored

0/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

26At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

26At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	2.6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

1Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

1Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars

1contributors

1commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

36releases

1bus factor

0open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Language breakdown unavailable
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.6 / 10

2.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-26 13:26 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/1 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

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.