Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-26 03:18 UTC

hugo-fixit / FixIt

🔧 A clean, elegant but advanced blog theme for Hugo 一个简洁、优雅且高效的 Hugo 主题

HTML · TypeScript · SCSSMIT★ 1,120 stars⑂ 136 forkssince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

hugo-fixit/FixIt holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Security (67/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hugo FixItOrganization · verified domain
35 followers33 public repossince Aug 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/hugo-fixit/FixItv0.4.5-61215 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 450 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year450
human_commit_share0.66
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year48
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 55 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count55
latest_release_tagv1.0.0-beta.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases22.7

Community & Adoption

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

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
49.5/60Stars — 1,120 stars
17.8/25Forks — 136 forks
3.9/15Watchers — 6 watchers
Inputs used
forks136
stars1,120
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges9
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 72% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 61 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled61
top_contributor_share0.722
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
23.1/30PR acceptance — 339/440 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs339
open_issues2
closed_issues274
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.993
closed_unmerged_prs101
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.2/25Owner reach — 35 followers of hugo-fixit
19.6/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers35
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhugo-fixit
public_repos33
account_age_days1,546
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
26/35Publish recency — latest publish 215 days ago
20/20Version history — 61 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/hugo-fixit/FixIt
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish215

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://fixit.lruihao.cn
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshugo-theme, hugo, hugo-blog, giscus, algolia, pwa, pwa-app, hugo-fixit, content-encryption, fixit-encrypt
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://fixit.lruihao.cn
docs_sitehttps://fixit.lruihao.cn
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 9 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
unassessed_packages10
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 9 resolved dependencies against OSV. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.mapbox.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 66 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.mapbox.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,676
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — assets/tsconfig.json, packages/chroma-lexers/tsconfig.json, packages/encrypt/tsconfig.json, packages/gen-docs/tsconfig.json, packages/integration/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset/tsconfig.json, packages/versioning/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsassets/tsconfig.json, packages/chroma-lexers/tsconfig.json, packages/encrypt/tsconfig.json, packages/gen-docs/tsconfig.json, packages/integration/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset/tsconfig.json, packages/versioning/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.09
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — HTML with type-check config (assets/tsconfig.json, packages/chroma-lexers/tsconfig.json, packages/encrypt/tsconfig.json, packages/gen-docs/tsconfig.json, packages/integration/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset/tsconfig.json, packages/versioning/tsconfig.json)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes — 7/138 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes1,897,192
source_files_sampled138
oversized_source_files7

Key facts

1,120GitHub stars
61contributors
450commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
55releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 136 ⇿
0Stars
136Forks
51Releases

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.

025507510012515013642022-012024-062026-10
Major 0Minor 2Patch 32

Each point covers 5 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 · 2026-10-26 03:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
5CI-Tests9 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
8SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@iconify/json^2.2.535indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.darwin-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-arm64-musl12.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.linux-x64-musl12.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-arm6412.3.4indirect
npm@pnpm/exe.win32-x6412.3.4indirect
npm@types/fs-extra^11.0.4indirect
npmcommander^15.0.0indirect
npmconsola^3.4.2indirect
npmfs-extra^11.4.1indirect
npmora^9.4.1indirect
npmpicocolors^1.1.1indirect
npmpnpm12.3.4indirect
npmtoml^5.0.0indirect
npmtypescript^6.0.3indirect
npmunocss^66.10.5indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 9 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 10 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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 — Go.