Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 02:30 UTC

hashtopolis / server

Hashtopolis - distributed password cracking with Hashcat

PHP · Python · HTMLGPL-3.0★ 1,822 stars⑂ 259 forkssince Nov 2016View on GitHub ↗

KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

#cracking #distributed #hashcat #pentesting #passwords #hashtopussy #hashlist #password-recovery #password-recovery-tool #password #password-cracking-tool #recovery #password-cracking

hashtopolis/server holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

HashtopolisOrganization

218 followers9 public repossince Feb 2018

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

98Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

96Exceptional

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
31.8/36	Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,071 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,071
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	46

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 45 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 39 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~22.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	45
latest_release_tag	v1.0.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	39
mean_days_between_releases	22.3

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?

77Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

83Excellent

How it's scored

52.9/60	Stars — 1,822 stars
20.1/25	Forks — 259 forks
9.8/15	Watchers — 60 watchers

Inputs used

forks	259
stars	1,822
watchers	60
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	1
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

37Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 53 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	53
top_contributor_share	0.819

Issue & PR responsiveness

92Excellent

How it's scored

37.2/42	Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
26.9/30	PR acceptance — 663/739 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	663
open_issues	198
closed_issues	1,545
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	10
prs_decided_30d	10
issue_closed_ratio	0.886
closed_unmerged_prs	76
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

66Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
16.8/25	Owner reach — 218 followers of hashtopolis
19.3/25	Track record — 9 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	218
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	hashtopolis
public_repos	9
account_age_days	3,155

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 7 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .flake8, phpstan.neon
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

85Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 13 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cracking, distributed, hashcat, pentesting, passwords, hashtopussy, hashlist, password-recovery, password-recovery-tool, password, password-cracking-tool, recovery, password-cracking
has_wiki	yes
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?

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

60Moderate

How it's scored

3.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 7 out of 7 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
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	112
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 112 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

59Moderate

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — doc/user_manual/agents.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.9/40	Legible commit history — 25 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.26
agent_instruction_files	doc/user_manual/agents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,788

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .flake8, phpstan.neon
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	composer.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.04

Code legibility for models

54Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — PHP without a type-check config
53.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 16/673 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	PHP
largest_source_bytes	1,058,878
source_files_sampled	673
oversized_source_files	16

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — openapi.json
0/20	MCP server
0/40	Runnable examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	—
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	openapi.json
interfaces_expected_of	network-service

Key facts

1,822GitHub stars

53contributors

1,071commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

45releases

1bus factor

198open issues

Packagist, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch packagist package 'hashtopolis/hashtopolis-skeleton' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 259 ⇿

0Stars

259Forks

41Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 11Patch 18

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10

6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 02:30 UTC

5	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	7 out of 7 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
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 14 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Packagist	crell/api-problem	`^3.6`	composer.json
Packagist	firebase/php-jwt	`7.0.2`	composer.json
Packagist	jimtools/basic-auth	`^1.0`	composer.json
Packagist	jimtools/jwt-auth	`^3.0`	composer.json
Packagist	middlewares/encoder	`^2.1`	composer.json
Packagist	middlewares/negotiation	`^2.1`	composer.json
Packagist	monolog/monolog	`^2.8`	composer.json
Packagist	slim/psr7	`^1.5`	composer.json
Packagist	slim/slim	`^4.10`	composer.json

All dependencies 112

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 103 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Packagist	crell/api-problem	`3.8.0`	direct
Packagist	firebase/php-jwt	`7.0.2`	direct
Packagist	jimtools/basic-auth	`1.0.0`	direct
Packagist	jimtools/jwt-auth	`3.0.1`	direct
Packagist	middlewares/encoder	`2.2.0`	direct
Packagist	middlewares/negotiation	`2.2.0`	direct
Packagist	monolog/monolog	`2.11.0`	direct
Packagist	slim/psr7	`1.8.0`	direct
Packagist	slim/slim	`4.15.2`	direct
Packagist	composer/semver	`3.4.4`	indirect
Packagist	doctrine/deprecations	`1.1.6`	indirect
Packagist	doctrine/instantiator	`2.1.0`	indirect
Packagist	fig/http-message-util	`1.1.5`	indirect
Packagist	laravel/serializable-closure	`1.3.7`	indirect
Packagist	middlewares/utils	`4.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	myclabs/deep-copy	`1.14.0`	indirect
Packagist	nikic/fast-route	`1.3.1`	indirect
Packagist	nikic/php-parser	`5.8.0`	indirect
Packagist	phar-io/manifest	`2.0.4`	indirect
Packagist	phar-io/version	`3.2.1`	indirect
Packagist	php-di/invoker	`2.3.7`	indirect
Packagist	php-di/php-di	`7.0.7`	indirect
Packagist	phpdocumentor/reflection-common	`2.2.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpdocumentor/reflection-docblock	`6.0.3`	indirect
Packagist	phpdocumentor/type-resolver	`2.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpspec/prophecy	`1.26.1`	indirect
Packagist	phpspec/prophecy-phpunit	`2.5.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpstan/extension-installer	`1.4.3`	indirect
Packagist	phpstan/phpdoc-parser	`2.3.3`	indirect
Packagist	phpstan/phpstan	`2.2.9`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/php-code-coverage	`12.5.7`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/php-file-iterator	`6.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/php-invoker	`6.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/php-text-template	`5.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/php-timer	`8.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	phpunit/phpunit	`12.5.34`	indirect
Packagist	psr/container	`2.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	psr/http-factory	`1.1.0`	indirect
Packagist	psr/http-message	`2.0`	indirect
Packagist	psr/http-server-handler	`1.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	psr/http-server-middleware	`1.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	psr/log	`3.0.2`	indirect
Packagist	ralouphie/getallheaders	`3.0.3`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/cli-parser	`4.2.1`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/comparator	`7.1.8`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/complexity	`5.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/diff	`7.0.1`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/environment	`8.1.2`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/exporter	`7.0.3`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/global-state	`8.0.3`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/lines-of-code	`4.0.1`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/object-enumerator	`7.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/object-reflector	`5.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/recursion-context	`7.0.1`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/type	`6.0.4`	indirect
Packagist	sebastian/version	`6.0.0`	indirect
Packagist	squizlabs/php_codesniffer	`3.13.6`	indirect
Packagist	staabm/side-effects-detector	`1.0.5`	indirect
Packagist	symfony/deprecation-contracts	`3.7.1`	indirect
Packagist	theseer/tokenizer	`2.0.1`	indirect
Packagist	tuupola/callable-handler	`1.1.0`	indirect
Packagist	tuupola/http-factory	`1.4.0`	indirect
Packagist	webmozart/assert	`2.4.1`	indirect
Packagist	willdurand/negotiation	`3.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`7.0`	indirect
PyPI	beautifulsoup4	`4.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.6.17`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.9`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	click-log	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	confidence	`0.18`	indirect
PyPI	csscompressor	`0.9.5`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	gitdb	`4.0.12`	indirect
PyPI	gitpython	`3.1.62`	indirect
PyPI	htmlmin2	`0.1.13`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	jsmin	`3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-callouts	`0.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-git-revision-date-localized-plugin	`1.5.3`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.7`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-minify-plugin	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-swagger-ui-tag	`0.8.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.1`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	smmap	`5.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	soupsieve	`2.9`	indirect
PyPI	tomlkit	`0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 112 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records