Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.9.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-13 17:43 UTC
hasna / codewith
Open-source command-line coding agent from Hasna for developers
hasna/codewith holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated today. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.
87
overall / 100Software 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.
87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
HasnaOrganization
7 followers97 public repossince Mar 2024
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @hasna/codewith | 0.1.64 | 5,970 | 56 | 0 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
92
Development activity
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 36/36 | Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 7,408 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 | 7,408 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 52 |
Release discipline
96Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 19 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 0 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~2.4 days |
| 6/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 19 |
| latest_release_tag | rust-v0.1.64 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 0 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 2.4 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
48
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
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
63Moderate
How it's scored
| 50.3/80 | Monthly downloads — 5,970 downloads/month across npm |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | @hasna/codewith |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | npm |
| total_downloads | — |
| monthly_downloads | 5,970 |
| unverified_packages_excluded | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
74
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
89Excellent
How it's scored
| 45.9/54 | Bus factor — 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 19.3/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 14% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 100 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 5 |
| contributors_sampled | 100 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.141 |
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 19.3/30 | PR acceptance — 112/174 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 112 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 62 |
| first_time_authors_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
68Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 6.5/25 | Owner reach — 7 followers of hasna |
| 17.7/25 | Track record — 97 public repos, account ~2 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 7 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | hasna |
| public_repos | 97 |
| account_age_days | 859 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 56 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | @hasna/codewith |
| ecosystems | npm |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 0 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
90
Engineering practices
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 24 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — eslint.config.js |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 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
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/hasna/codewith |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://github.com/hasna/codewith |
| docs_site | https://github.com/hasna/codewith |
| 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?
51
Security posture
51Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 2.2/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 18 out of 18 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 4 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 4/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 5/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file detected |
| 4.5/7.5 | Signed-Releases — 4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts. |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 38 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 18 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 0 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 5.1 |
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.
90
Agent context & guidance
75Good
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, codex-rs/tui/src/bottom_pane/AGENTS.md |
| 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 | AGENTS.md, codex-rs/tui/src/bottom_pane/AGENTS.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 229 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
94Exceptional
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — justfile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — eslint.config.js |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — sdk/python/src/codewith/py.typed, sdk/typescript/tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | Cargo.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | justfile |
| has_devcontainer | yes |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | sdk/python/src/codewith/py.typed, sdk/typescript/tsconfig.json |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed) |
| 52.7/55 | Manageable file sizes — 137/3,301 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Rust |
| largest_source_bytes | 422,983 |
| source_files_sampled | 3,301 |
| oversized_source_files | 137 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 40/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — codex-rs/config/src/thread_config/proto/codex.thread_config.v1.proto, codex-rs/exec-server/src/proto/codex.exec_server.relay.v1.proto |
| 20/20 | MCP server |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — demos, examples, notebooks, samples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | demos, examples, notebooks, samples |
| has_mcp_signal | yes |
| api_schema_files | codex-rs/config/src/thread_config/proto/codex.thread_config.v1.proto, codex-rs/exec-server/src/proto/codex.exec_server.relay.v1.proto |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Key facts
0GitHub stars
100contributors
7,408commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
19releases
5bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Could not fetch pypi package 'codex-scripts' from its registry
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 3 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 18 out of 18 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 |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 4 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 |
| 0 | Maintained | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 8 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Security-Policy | security policy file detected |
| 6 | Signed-Releases | 4 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts. |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 38 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 1
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | ruff | >=0.15.8 | scripts/pyproject.toml |
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 v0.9.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — npm.