Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 02:07 UTC

jamditis / claude-skills-journalism

Claude Code skills for journalism, media, and academia - verification, FOIA, data journalism, academic writing, and more

Python · JavaScript · HTMLMIT★ 397 stars⑂ 64 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗

jamditis/claude-skills-journalism holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Joe AmditisPersonal account
84 followers38 public repossince Feb 2014Center for Cooperative Media

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
23.5/36Commit cadence34/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume450 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year450
human_commit_share0.73
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year34

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases26 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 25 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~11.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv2.7.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release25
mean_days_between_releases11.7
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.1/60Stars397 stars
15/25Forks64 forks
3.3/15Watchers5 watchers
Inputs used
forks64
stars397
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.955
How it's scored
33.2/42Issue resolution79% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance184/188 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs184
open_issues24
closed_issues91
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d23
prs_decided_30d24
issue_closed_ratio0.791
closed_unmerged_prs4
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
13.9/25Owner reach84 followers of jamditis
23.6/25Track record38 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers84
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginjamditis
public_repos38
account_age_days4,587
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://skills.amditis.tech/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsacademic-writing, claude, claude-code, claude-skills, data-journalism, fact-checking, foia, journalism, media, newsroom, osint, skills, verification
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://skills.amditis.tech/
docs_sitehttps://skills.amditis.tech/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages85
unassessed_packages4
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 85 resolved dependencies against OSV. 4 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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt present
40/40Legible commit history56 of 73 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.767
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes21,890
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
52.5/55Manageable file sizes5/108 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes132,884
source_files_sampled108
oversized_source_files5
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

397GitHub stars
6contributors
450commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
24open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package 'claude-skills-journalism' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 64 ⇿
0Stars
64Forks
26Releases

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.

01325385063756432026-012026-052026-08
Major 2Minor 14Patch 10
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 02:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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
10CI-Tests19 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
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
0Vulnerabilities21 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmplaywright^1.57.0package.json
All dependencies 89

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmplaywright1.57.0direct
npm@alloc/quick-lru5.2.0indirect
npm@axe-core/playwright4.11.3indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.13indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.scandir2.1.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.stat2.0.5indirect
npm@nodelib/fs.walk1.2.8indirect
npmany-promise1.3.0indirect
npmanymatch3.1.3indirect
npmarg5.0.2indirect
npmargparse3.0.0indirect
npmaxe-core4.11.4indirect
npmbinary-extensions2.3.0indirect
npmbraces3.0.3indirect
npmcamelcase-css2.0.1indirect
npmchokidar3.6.0indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmcssesc3.0.0indirect
npmdidyoumean1.2.2indirect
npmdlv1.1.3indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmes-errors1.3.0indirect
npmfast-glob3.3.3indirect
npmfastq1.20.1indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfill-range7.1.1indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmglob-parent5.1.2indirect
npmglob-parent6.0.2indirect
npmhasown2.0.4indirect
npmis-binary-path2.1.0indirect
npmis-core-module2.16.2indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmis-number7.0.0indirect
npmjiti1.21.7indirect
npmlilconfig3.1.3indirect
npmlines-and-columns1.2.4indirect
npmlinkify-it6.1.0indirect
npmmarkdown-it15.0.0indirect
npmmdurl2.1.0indirect
npmmerge21.4.1indirect
npmmicromatch4.0.8indirect
npmmz2.7.0indirect
npmnanoid3.3.18indirect
npmnormalize-path3.0.0indirect
npmobject-assign4.1.1indirect
npmobject-hash3.0.0indirect
npmpath-parse1.0.7indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch2.3.2indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmpify2.3.0indirect
npmpirates4.0.7indirect
npmplaywright-core1.57.0indirect
npmpostcss8.5.26indirect
npmpostcss-import15.1.0indirect
npmpostcss-js4.1.0indirect
npmpostcss-load-config6.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-nested6.2.0indirect
npmpostcss-selector-parser6.1.4indirect
npmpostcss-value-parser4.2.0indirect
npmpunycode.js2.3.1indirect
npmqueue-microtask1.2.3indirect
npmread-cache1.0.0indirect
npmreaddirp3.6.0indirect
npmresolve1.22.12indirect
npmreusify1.1.0indirect
npmrun-parallel1.2.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmsucrase3.35.1indirect
npmsupports-preserve-symlinks-flag1.0.0indirect
npmtailwindcss3.4.19indirect
npmthenify3.3.1indirect
npmthenify-all1.6.0indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmto-regex-range5.0.1indirect
npmts-interface-checker0.1.13indirect
npmuc.micro3.0.0indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmyaml2.9.0indirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIplaywrightindirect
PyPIpyyamlindirect
PyPIresvg-cliindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 85 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 4 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.