Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-23 18:28 UTC

imsai-sh / awesome-deepseek-harness-plugins

DeepSeek Harness plugin store, marketplace and hub — 11,000+ dsh plugins with search, rankings, install commands and a free public API. DeepSeek Harness 插件市场 / 插件商店:自动收集与格式校验,免费搜索 API。deepseek1024.com

JavaScriptMIT★ 247 stars⑂ 240 forkssince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗

imsai-sh/awesome-deepseek-harness-plugins holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (70/100) and lowest on Vitality (35/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

saiPersonal account
130 followers33 public repossince Sep 2015China

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?

35Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 920 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year920
human_commit_share0.59
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

67Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
38.8/60Stars — 247 stars
19.8/25Forks — 240 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks240
stars247
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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_badges1
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 53% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.529
How it's scored
18/42Issue resolution — 43% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance — 422/445 decided PRs merged
12.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 16/17 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs422
open_issues12
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d38
prs_decided_7d38
prs_merged_30d59
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.429
closed_unmerged_prs23
first_time_authors_30d10
first_time_prs_merged_30d16
first_time_prs_decided_30d17
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.2/25Owner reach — 130 followers of imsai-sh
23.2/25Track record — 33 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers130
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginimsai-sh
public_repos33
account_age_days4,011
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://deepseek1024.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsawesome-list, deepseek, deepseek-harness, dsh, dsh-plugin, plugin-directory, plugins, dsh-bundle, dsh-plugin-market, dsh-plugin-verify, dsh-plugins, dsh-skill, deepseek1024, dsh-1024store, catalog, deepseek-harness-plugins, marketplace, plugin-hub, plugin-store, registry
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://deepseek1024.com/
docs_sitehttps://deepseek1024.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no data
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — no data
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CII-Best-Practices, Fuzzing, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://deepseek1024.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 59 of 59 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://deepseek1024.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,277
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/13 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes41,991
source_files_sampled13
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

247GitHub stars
99contributors
920commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
12open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 39 authors (cap 12)
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 240 ⇿
0Stars
240Forks

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.

04080120160200240240202026-082026-092026-09
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-23 18:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
n/aCII-Best-Practicesinternal error: error during http.Do: Get "https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects.json?url=https://github.com/imsai-sh/awesome-deepseek-harness-plugins": Get "https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects.json?url=https://github.com/imsai-sh/awesome-deepseek-harness-plugins": dial tcp: lookup www.bestpractices.dev on 127.0.0.11:53: server misbehaving
5Code-ReviewFound 16/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
n/aFuzzinginternal error: internal error: Client.Search.Code: http.Get: Get "https://oss-fuzz-build-logs.storage.googleapis.com/status.json": dial tcp [2a00:1450:4001:c0f::cf]:443: connect: network is unreachable
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 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.

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.