Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 04:14 UTC

krille-chan / fluffychat

The cutest instant messenger in the [matrix]

DartAGPL-3.0★ 3,123 stars⑂ 637 forkssince Jul 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationMobile applicationhow this is determined

krille-chan/fluffychat holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (57/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Krille-chanPersonal account
727 followers60 public repossince Dec 2016@famedly

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?

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 2,522 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year2,522
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.9.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases6.1

Community & Adoption

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

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
56.7/60Stars — 3,123 stars
23.4/25Forks — 637 forks
7.6/15Watchers — 24 watchers
Inputs used
forks637
stars3,123
watchers24
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code 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_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 45 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.739
How it's scored
31.8/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
24.1/30PR acceptance — 1,100/1,367 decided PRs merged
3.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/7 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs1,100
open_issues515
closed_issues1,596
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d32
prs_decided_30d46
issue_closed_ratio0.756
closed_unmerged_prs267
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d7
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
20.6/25Owner reach — 727 followers of krille-chan
25/25Track record — 60 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers727
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkrille-chan
public_repos60
account_age_days3,558
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://fluffychat.im/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapp, dart, flutter, matrix
has_wikino
homepagehttps://fluffychat.im/
docs_sitehttps://fluffychat.im/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 45 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 10 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
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 — 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_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

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_packages99
unassessed_packages2
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 99 resolved dependencies against OSV. 2 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 87 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.989
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — android/app/build.gradle.kts, android/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Dart (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 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
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsandroid/app/build.gradle.kts, android/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Dart (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/267 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageDart
largest_source_bytes52,207
source_files_sampled267
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3,123GitHub stars
99contributors
2,522commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
515open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 16 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 637 ⇿
0Stars
637Forks
100Releases

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.

012525037550062562582023-072025-022026-09
Major 1Minor 17Patch 16

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 04:13 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-Tests10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 2/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 45 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 10 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane—android/Gemfile
RubyGemsmulti_json—android/Gemfile
RubyGemsfastlane—ios/Gemfile
RubyGemsabbrev—ios/Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m—ios/Gemfile
RubyGemsostruct—ios/Gemfile
All dependencies 101

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 94 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2direct
RubyGemsfastlane—direct
RubyGemsfastlane2.237.0direct
RubyGemsmulti_json—direct
RubyGemsmulti_json1.15.0direct
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0direct
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.15indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1213.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.242.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.121.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.208.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.0.1indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.3indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.0.3indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.5.20190701indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.7.6indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.2indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.6indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.7indirect
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_middleware1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.2.4indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.4.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.3.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.4.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.31.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth0.16.2indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.8.3indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.5.1indirect
RubyGemsjwt2.10.3indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmemoist0.16.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.11.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsplist3.6.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.0indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.15.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.8indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.1indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.1indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunf0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunf_ext0.0.7.7indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.7.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.8.2indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.19.0indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 99 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 2 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.