Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 20:52 UTC

hanxi / cups-web

把家用 USB 打印机变成随时可访问的网络打印服务

Go · Vue · ShellMIT★ 1,242 stars⑂ 148 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfacehow this is determined

hanxi/cups-web holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Security (32/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

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)
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

涵曦Personal account
469 followers241 public repossince Nov 2011

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?

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume179 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year179
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases43 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~7.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count43
latest_release_tagv0.2.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases7.7

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.2/60Stars1,242 stars
18.1/25Forks148 forks
5/15Watchers9 watchers
Inputs used
forks148
stars1,242
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges16
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
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?

48Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.933
How it's scored
24.3/42Issue resolution58% of issues closed
23.3/30PR acceptance7/9 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues38
closed_issues52
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.578
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
19.2/25Owner reach469 followers of hanxi
25/25Track record241 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers469
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginhanxi
public_repos241
account_age_days5,399
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/hanxi/cups-web
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscups, cups-docker, cups-printserver, docker, nas, printer
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/hanxi/cups-web
docs_sitehttps://github.com/hanxi/cups-web
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

32At Risk · 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities46 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3.2

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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history85 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.85
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes21,818
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, ofd-converter/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/60 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes48,704
source_files_sampled60
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,242GitHub stars
6contributors
179commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
43releases
1bus factor
38open issues
Go, Maven, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch maven package 'org.cups:ofd-converter' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 148 ⇿
0Stars
148Forks
42Releases

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.

0255075100125150148122025-122026-042026-08
Major 0Minor 2Patch 39
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 20:51 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
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities46 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 17
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@nuxt/uilatestfrontend/package.json
npmcropperjs1frontend/package.json
npmheic2any^0.0.4frontend/package.json
npmpdfjs-dist^5.6.205frontend/package.json
npmvue^3.5.26frontend/package.json
npmvue-routerlatestfrontend/package.json
Gogithub.com/OpenPrinting/goippv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/muxv1.8.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/securecookiev1.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/pdfcpu/pdfcpuv0.12.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/phpdave11/gofpdfv1.4.2go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.50.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/imagev0.39.0go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.50.0go.mod
Gorsc.io/pdfv0.1.1go.mod
Mavenorg.ofdrw:ofdrw-converter2.3.8ofd-converter/pom.xml
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-simple1.7.36ofd-converter/pom.xml
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.

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.