Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 04:37 UTC

hushenghao / androideastereggs

Android Easter Egg Collections

Kotlin · JavaApache-2.0★ 1,240 stars⑂ 84 forkssince Oct 2020View on GitHub ↗

hushenghao/androideastereggs holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
overall / 100
Good

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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hu Shenghao Personal account
117 followers48 public repossince May 2017

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
33.9/36Commit cadence49/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume509 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year509
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year49
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases63 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~17.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count63
latest_release_tagv5.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases17.7

Community & Adoption

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

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
50.2/60Stars1,240 stars
16/25Forks84 forks
8.2/15Watchers31 watchers
Inputs used
forks84
stars1,240
watchers31
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 75% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.753
How it's scored
41.2/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
23.5/30PR acceptance507/647 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs507
open_issues5
closed_issues243
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.98
closed_unmerged_prs140
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.9/25Owner reach117 followers of hushenghao
24.3/25Track record48 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers117
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginhushenghao
public_repos48
account_age_days3,348
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsandroid, kotlin-android, jetpack-compose, jetpack, material-you, easter-egg, dynamic-color, hilt-android, room-database
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes28,182
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingKotlin (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeKotlin (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes2/426 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes81,036
source_files_sampled426
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

1,240GitHub stars
12contributors
509commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
63releases
1bus factor
5open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 04:37 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
3CI-Tests1 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 17 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
7SASTSAST 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
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlaneGemfile
All dependencies 104

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 103 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsfastlane2.237.0direct
PyPIblurhash-python1.2.2indirect
PyPIcrowdin-api-client1.27.0indirect
PyPIfonttoolsindirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIsvgwrite1.4.3indirect
PyPIzopfli0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1268.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.254.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.130.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.227.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20240107indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.6indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_synchrony1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-excon1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-httpclient1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-patron1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-rack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday_middleware1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-plugin-pgyer0.3.3indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.104.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.64.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.2.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.1indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.0indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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