Public record
Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 06:31 UTC

magicsword-io / LOLDrivers

Living Off The Land Drivers

YARAApache-2.0★ 1,703 stars⑂ 216 forkssince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

magicsword-io/LOLDrivers holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (83/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (29/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MagicSwordOrganization
263 followers13 public repossince Feb 2023

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume298 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year298
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 1,085 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~84.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,085
mean_days_between_releases84.6

Community & Adoption

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

83Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
52.4/60Stars1,703 stars
19.4/25Forks216 forks
9/15Watchers42 watchers
Inputs used
forks216
stars1,703
watchers42
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 44% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth30 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.44
How it's scored
38.9/42Issue resolution92% of issues closed
27.6/30PR acceptance217/236 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs217
open_issues11
closed_issues136
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.925
closed_unmerged_prs19
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
17.4/25Owner reach263 followers of magicsword-io
15.2/25Track record13 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers263
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmagicsword-io
public_repos13
account_age_days1,255
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests7 out of 7 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 sitehttps://www.loldrivers.io/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdrivers, malicious
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.loldrivers.io/
docs_sitehttps://www.loldrivers.io/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests7 out of 7 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities42 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
5.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories7 affected: cryptography 41.0.3 (high 7.5), jinja2 3.1.2 (high 8.8), dnspython 2.4.2 (moderate 5.9), +4 more
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
21.1/40No advisories left outstanding6 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,033 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories80
affected_packages13
assessed_packages53
unassessed_packages7
affected_by_severityhigh 7, moderate 5, low 1
direct_affected_packages7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 53 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

29At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, poetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeYARA without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageYARA
largest_source_bytes38,717
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1,703GitHub stars
30contributors
298commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
2releases
2bus factor
11open issues
Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch pypi package 'loldrivers' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'loldriver-lql-gen' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 1,703 ★ / 0 ⇿
1,703Stars

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

5007501,0001,2501,5001,7501,703482023-102025-032026-07

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 06:30 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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-Tests7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 14 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 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities42 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIPyYAML^6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpandas^2.1.3pyproject.toml
PyPIJinja2^3.1.2pyproject.toml
PyPIstix2^3.0.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcolorama>=0.3.9pyproject.toml
PyPIfuture>=0.16.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31.0pyproject.toml
PyPIconfigparser>=3.5.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpymisp>=2.4.123pyproject.toml
PyPIflask>=1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-caching^2.0.2pyproject.toml
PyPIcfscrape^2.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIpyzipper^0.3.6pyproject.toml
PyPIdnspython^2.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPIipy^1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIvalhallaapi^0.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlief^0.13.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpefile^2023.2.7pyproject.toml
PyPIshortuuid^1.0.11pyproject.toml
PyPIplyara^2.1.1pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography^41.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests^2.31.0detections/lacework/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml^6.0.1detections/lacework/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 26 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIcfscrape2.1.1direct
PyPIcolorama0.4.6direct
PyPIconfigparser6.0.0direct
PyPIcryptographydirect
PyPIcryptography41.0.3direct
PyPIdnspython2.4.2direct
PyPIflask2.3.3direct
PyPIflask-caching2.0.2direct
PyPIfuture0.18.3direct
PyPIipy1.01direct
PyPIjinja23.1.2direct
PyPIliefdirect
PyPIlief0.13.2direct
PyPIpandasdirect
PyPIpandas2.1.3direct
PyPIpefiledirect
PyPIpefile2023.2.7direct
PyPIplyara2.1.1direct
PyPIpymisp2.4.175direct
PyPIpyyamldirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1direct
PyPIpyzipper0.3.6direct
PyPIrequests2.31.0direct
PyPIshortuuid1.0.11direct
PyPIstix23.0.1direct
PyPIvalhallaapi0.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/onweru/composev0.0.0-20230124183858-9412f10b0de5indirect
PyPIantlr4-python3-runtime4.9.3indirect
PyPIattrs23.1.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.6.2indirect
PyPIcachelib0.9.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2023.7.22indirect
PyPIcffi1.15.1indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.2.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.2.14indirect
PyPIidna3.4indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.1.2indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.19.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2023.7.1indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.3indirect
PyPImatplotlibindirect
PyPInumpy1.26.2indirect
PyPIpackaging23.1indirect
PyPIply3.11indirect
PyPIpublicsuffixlist0.10.0.20230828indirect
PyPIpycparser2.21indirect
PyPIpycryptodomex3.18.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.8.2indirect
PyPIpytz2023.3.post1indirect
PyPIreferencing0.30.2indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.10.2indirect
PyPIsimplejson3.19.1indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIstix2-patterns2.0.0indirect
PyPItzdata2023.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.0.4indirect
PyPIvt-pyindirect
PyPIwerkzeug2.3.7indirect
PyPIwrapt1.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 13

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 53 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 13 carry known advisories, of which 7 are direct. 7 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
cryptography41.0.3directhigh1548.0.1
jinja23.1.2directhigh103.1.6
certifi2023.7.22indirecthigh22024.7.4
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
idna3.4indirecthigh43.15
urllib32.0.4indirecthigh162.7.0
werkzeug2.3.7indirecthigh143.1.6
dnspython2.4.2directmoderate22.6.1
flask2.3.3directmoderate23.1.3
pyzipper0.3.6directmoderate20.4.0
requests2.31.0directmoderate62.33.0
pycryptodomex3.18.0indirectmoderate23.19.1
lief0.13.2directlow40.17.2

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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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