Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-30 07:01 UTC

hobbyquaker / homematic-xmlrpc

A pure JavaScript XML-RPC client and server for Node.js. Patched for use with Homematic CCU

JavaScriptMIT★ 7 stars⑂ 4 forkssince May 2014forkView on GitHub ↗

hobbyquaker/homematic-xmlrpc holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (56/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated 32 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

Sebastian RaffPersonal account
520 followers258 public repossince Oct 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmhomematic-xmlrpc2.0.06,740433 days agoxml-rpcxmlrpcxmlrpchomematicbidcoshmipccu

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

48Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 32 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
4.3/18Commit volume — 2 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year2
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push32
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 33 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release33
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars — 7 stars
4/25Forks — 4 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks4
stars7
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesbadge.fury.io, github.com, shields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
51/80Monthly downloads — 6,740 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshomematic-xmlrpc
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads6,740
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.677
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
15/30PR acceptance — 1/2 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
19.5/25Owner reach — 520 followers of hobbyquaker
25/25Track record — 258 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers520
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhobbyquaker
public_repos258
account_age_days5,106
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 33 days ago
12/20Version history — 4 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshomematic-xmlrpc
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish33

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

33At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 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

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshomematic, smarthome, homegear, rpc, node-module
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

49Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:homematic-xmlrpc@2.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 packages. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
13.9/40Legible commit history — 26 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.26
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/17 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes13,571
source_files_sampled17
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

7GitHub stars
15contributors
2commits, last 12 months
32days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4 ⇿
0Stars
4Forks

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.

1223344412015-052019-062023-07

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-30 07:01 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmsax^1.4.1package.json
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmsax1.6.1direct
npmdiff1.0.8indirect
npmeyes0.1.8indirect
npmvows0.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:homematic-xmlrpc@2.0.0 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

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 — npm.