# hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation — health index 13/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 13 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/h/hsu-aut/PLC-Simulation.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-04
- Methodology: metrics 2.5.0, report schema 0.30.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 22/100 | At Risk |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 17/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 45/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 25/100 | At Risk |
| Security | 16% | 25/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 31/100 | At Risk |

The weighted overall 28 is calibrated to 22 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). Abandonment Policy applies a 60% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a ceiling of 34.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Simulation of a Fischer-Technik lab plant that can be used to learn PLC programming |
| Classification | application |
| Primary language | Java |
| Stars | 5 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2020-05-18 |
| Last push | 2023-06-14 |
| Latest release | v1.0.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | plc, plc-programming, sps, sps-programmierung, simulation, plc-simulation, automation, controller, controller-programming, opc-ua, opcua |

## Vitality — 22/100 (At Risk)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | not met | 0 / 36 | last push 1146 days ago |
| Commit cadence | not met | 0 / 36 | 0/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | not met | 0 / 18 | 0 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 2258 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~1.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 60 / 100 | no human commit for 2259 days; 3 unmet obligation(s): a fixed advisory left unapplied, releases stalled, Scorecard reports it unmaintained |

## Community & Adoption — 17/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 10/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 9.8 / 60 | 5 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | not met | 0 / 22.5 | no license file detected |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 45/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 16/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 6 / 10 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 59/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 21 / 42 | 50% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 2/2 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 9.9 / 25 | 23 followers of hsu-aut |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 70 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 25/100 (At Risk)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 11 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 25/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 13/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | 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 |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/2 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 1.5 / 2.5 | project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | not met | 0 / 2.5 | license file not detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 49 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 73/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 10 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 19.6 / 35 | 1 affected: com.google.guava:guava 29.0-jre (moderate 5.5) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 35.2 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1957 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 31/100 (At Risk)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 3/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 3.3 / 40 | 5 of 81 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 26/100 (At Risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Java (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 81 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Java (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/30 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch maven package 'de.hsu-hh.aut:ft-lab-simulation' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt