Public record
Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 02:25 UTC

maakbaas / esp8266-iot-framework

Framework for IoT projects implementing HTTPS requests, a React web interface, WiFi manager, live dashboard, configuration manager, file manager and OTA updates.

C++GPL-3.0★ 431 stars⑂ 113 forkssince Apr 2020archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfacehow this is determined

maakbaas/esp8266-iot-framework holds a health index of 14 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (55/100) and lowest on Vitality (18/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

14
overall / 100
Critical

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.

14
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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MaakbaasPersonal account
62 followers5 public repossince Nov 2019

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
npmesppoints to another repo — not scored0.1.16132194753 days agoespframeworkmvcrestfulroutecoffeescript

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 894 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push894
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases14 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 894 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~130.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv1.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release894
mean_days_between_releases130.8
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?

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.7/60Stars431 stars
17.1/25Forks113 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks113
stars431
watchers1
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
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

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.872
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance48/58 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs48
open_issues0
closed_issues113
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs10
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
12.9/25Owner reach62 followers of maakbaas
17.7/25Track record5 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers62
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmaakbaas
public_repos5
account_age_days2,447
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsesp8266, react, ota-updates, wifi-manager, https, file-manager
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?

28At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities156 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10.2/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories3 affected: mime 1.2.9 (high 7.5), moment 2.0.0 (high 7.5), node-static 0.7.0 (high 7.5)
5.4/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: minimist 0.0.10 (critical 9.8)
22.1/40No advisories left outstanding4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 3,192 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories8
affected_packages4
assessed_packages9
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 3
direct_affected_packages3
Matched the npm:esp@0.1.16 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 9 packages. 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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
16.7/40Legible commit history31 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.313
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.js
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/40 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes10,170
source_files_sampled40
oversized_source_files0
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 examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

431GitHub stars
10contributors
0commits, last 12 months
894days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • npm package 'esp' points at a different repository (https://github.com/nonocast/esp); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 431 ★ / 113 ⇿
431Stars
113Forks
14Releases

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.

0100200300400500431112312020-052023-052026-06
Major 0Minor 9Patch 5

Each point covers 6 days.

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 · 2026-07-22 02:25 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities156 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmhistory^4.10.1package.json
npmpreact^10.4.0package.json
npmprop-types^15.7.2package.json
npmreact-icons^4.2.0package.json
npmreact-router-dom^5.1.2package.json
npmreact-vis^1.11.7package.json
npmstyled-components^5.1.0package.json
npmstyled-normalize^8.0.7package.json
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories 4

Installing npm:esp@0.1.16 pulls in 9 packages, direct and transitive: 4 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
minimist0.0.10indirectcritical21.2.6
mime1.2.9directhigh12.0.3
moment2.0.0directhigh32.29.2
node-static0.7.0directhigh2

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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