Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.6.0 · 2026-08-15 22:51 UTC

mamoe / mirai

高效率 QQ 机器人支持库

KotlinAGPL-3.0★ 14,811 stars⑂ 2,496 forkssince Aug 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

mamoe/mirai holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (84/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). It was last updated 691 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

34
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.

34
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mamoe TechnologiesOrganization
157 followers6 public repossince Jul 2019

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?

25At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 691 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push691
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 1,028 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~35.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.16.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1,028
mean_days_between_releases35.7
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 14,811 stars
25/25Forks — 2,496 forks
11.8/15Watchers — 134 watchers
Inputs used
forks2,496
stars14,811
watchers134
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
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.745
How it's scored
36.1/42Issue resolution — 86% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance — 498/591 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs498
open_issues281
closed_issues1,711
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.859
closed_unmerged_prs93
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15.8/25Owner reach — 157 followers of mamoe
18.2/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers157
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmamoe
public_repos6
account_age_days2,599

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

68Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://mirai.mamoe.net
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsjava, kotlin, mirai, chatbot
has_wikino
homepagehttps://mirai.mamoe.net
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
1.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, packaging, signed_releases. 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.

46Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.9/40Legible commit history — 41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.41
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — build.gradle.kts, buildSrc/build.gradle.kts, ci-release-helper/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Kotlin (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle.kts, buildSrc/build.gradle.kts, ci-release-helper/build.gradle.kts, logging/mirai-logging-log4j2/build.gradle.kts, logging/mirai-logging-slf4j-logback/build.gradle.kts, logging/mirai-logging-slf4j-simple/build.gradle.kts, logging/mirai-logging-slf4j/build.gradle.kts, mirai-bom/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/codegen/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/mirai-plugin-compatibility/mirai-jar-after-2_11/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/mirai-plugin-compatibility/mirai-jar-before-2_11/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/plugin-dep-dependon-dep-issue-2054/module-modb/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/plugin-dep-dependon-dep-issue-2054/second-plugin/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/plugin-depend-on-other/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/plugin-resolve-self-dependencies-over-console-ones/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/plugin-use-console-deps-fallback/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/service-loader/module-service-loader-impl/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/integration-test/testers/service-loader/service-loader-2dep-plugin/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/backend/mirai-console/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/frontend/mirai-android/app/build.gradle, mirai-console/frontend/mirai-android/build.gradle, mirai-console/frontend/mirai-console-frontend-base/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/frontend/mirai-console-terminal/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/tools/compiler-annotations/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/tools/compiler-common/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/tools/gradle-plugin/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/tools/intellij-plugin/build.gradle.kts, mirai-console/tools/intellij-plugin/run/projects/test-project/build.gradle.kts, mirai-core-all/build.gradle.kts, mirai-core-api/build.gradle.kts, mirai-core-mock/build.gradle.kts, mirai-core-utils/build.gradle.kts, mirai-core/build.gradle.kts, mirai-deps-test/build.gradle.kts, mirai-dokka/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 3/1,401 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes170,377
source_files_sampled1,401
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files

Key facts

14,811GitHub stars
99contributors
0commits, last 12 months
691days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
281open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2,496 ⇿
0Stars
2,496Forks
49Releases

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.

1,5001,7502,0002,2502,5002,496172021-092024-022026-08
Major 0Minor 9Patch 18

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-15 22:50 UTC

2Binary-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
0CI-Tests0 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 12/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
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 not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.6.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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