Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 01:48 UTC

lgyEthan / v_ase

Visualisation tools for atomic simulations

JavaScript · PythonMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

lgyEthan/v_ase holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (48/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (24/100). It was last updated today.

31
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

31
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 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Giyeok LeePersonal account
5 followers8 public repossince Nov 2017University of Sydney

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIv_ase-gui0.0.723,848690 days agoaseatomsmaterials-sciencevisualizationeditorthreejs

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

57Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18Commit volume — 72 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_year72
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

1Critical
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

60Moderate
How it's scored
47.8/80Monthly downloads — 3,848 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesv_ase-gui
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads3,848
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

44Weak · 23% of overall

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

43Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of lgyEthan
18.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginlgyEthan
public_repos8
account_age_days3,171
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 69 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesv_ase-gui
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

26At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

26At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
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
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

24At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

2Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.5/40Legible commit history — 2 of 73 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.027
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 73
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
50.2/55Manageable file sizes — 4/46 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes300,529
source_files_sampled46
oversized_source_files4

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1GitHub stars
-contributors
72commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
-bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Contributor list unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:v_ase-gui@0.0.72; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.6 / 10
2.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 01:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIase>=3.23pyproject.toml
PyPIfastapi>=0.110pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.29pyproject.toml
PyPInumpy>=1.24pyproject.toml
PyPIipython>=8pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31pyproject.toml
PyPIimageio-ffmpeg>=0.5pyproject.toml
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with lgyEthan/v_ase. Read them side by side →

89git-cola/git-colagit-cola: The highly caffeinated Git GUIExcellent73LinkunGao/copper3d_visualisationA 3d visualisation package base on threejs. Provides: Dicom loader, Nrrd Segmentation Tools, GltfExport, Create vtk animation functions.Good94pascalorg/editorCreate and share 3D architectural projects.Exceptional92NASA-AMMOS/3DTilesRendererJSRenderer for 3D Tiles in Javascript using three.js, Babylon.js, and r3fExcellent86janosh/mattervizInteractive browser visualizations for materials science: crystal structures/molecules, trajectories, convex hulls, phase diagrams, Fermi surfaces, bands+DOS, Brillouin zones, etc.Excellent99mne-tools/mne-pythonMNE: Magnetoencephalography (MEG) and Electroencephalography (EEG) in PythonExceptional

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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