Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-14 00:31 UTC

huanfeng / WindInput

清风输入法 | 轻量、快速、可定制的开源中文输入法，专为五笔和码表输入方案设计（Windows / macOS）

RustMIT★ 220 stars⑂ 18 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗
#ime#tsf#wubi#windinput#input-method#macos#rust

huanfeng/WindInput holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Security (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

huanfengPersonal account
22 followers44 public repossince Apr 2012

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?

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

71Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,253 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,253
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.116.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases2.3

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak
How it's scored
38/60Stars — 220 stars
10.3/25Forks — 18 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks18
stars220
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

35Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

46Weak
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — 0/2 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_prs0
open_issues3
closed_issues58
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.951
closed_unmerged_prs2
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
9.8/25Owner reach — 22 followers of huanfeng
24/25Track record — 44 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers22
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginhuanfeng
public_repos44
account_age_days5,238
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://windinput.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsime, tsf, wubi, windinput, input-method, macos, rust
has_wikino
homepagehttps://windinput.com
docs_sitehttps://windinput.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk
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 — no data
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
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-bridge/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-cmdbar/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-config/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-coordinator/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-dict/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-engine/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-rpc/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-store/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-theme/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-ui/AGENTS.md, wind_macos/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/include/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/res/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/src/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-bridge/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-cmdbar/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-config/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-coordinator/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-dict/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-engine/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-rpc/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-store/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-theme/AGENTS.md, wind_input/crates/wind-ui/AGENTS.md, wind_macos/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/include/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/res/AGENTS.md, wind_tsf/src/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes30,405

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — wind_tsf/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_fileswind_tsf/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestswind_input/Cargo.toml, wind_input/apps/repl/Cargo.toml, wind_input/apps/rpc/Cargo.toml, wind_input/apps/service/Cargo.toml, wind_input/apps/wind-tools/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-bridge/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-candidate/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-cmdbar/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-config/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-coordinator/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-dict/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-engine/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-ipc/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-keys/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-phrase/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-punct/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-quick-input/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-reverse/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-rpc/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-store/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-theme/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-transfer/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-transform/Cargo.toml, wind_input/crates/wind-ui/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

96Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
51.2/55Manageable file sizes — 24/350 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes580,135
source_files_sampled350
oversized_source_files24

Key facts

220GitHub stars
1contributors
1,253commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
10releases
1bus factor
3open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 18 ⇿
0Stars
18Forks
7Releases

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.

0481216201822026-042026-062026-08
Major 0Minor 4Patch 3
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-14 00:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
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
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with huanfeng/WindInput. Read them side by side →

97wasmerio/wasmer🚀 Fast, secure, lightweight containers based on WebAssemblyExceptional96hashintel/hash🚀 The open-source, multi-tenant platform for self-building knowledge graphs and simulationExceptional94superradcompany/microsandbox🧱 easy fast local-first microVM runtime and libraryExceptional94topgrade-rs/topgradeUpgrade all the thingsExceptional94rust-windowing/winitWindow handling library in pure RustExceptional100risingwavelabs/risingwaveEvent streaming platform for agentic AI. Continuously ingest, transform, and serve event streams in real time, at scale.Exceptional

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.