Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 03:49 UTC

manusoft / ManuHub-Ytdlp-Builds

Automated build pipelines and packaging tools for ManuHub Ytdlp ecosystem, including yt-dlp binaries, Deno binaries, FFmpeg components, and runtime integrations for .NET projects.

MIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

manusoft/ManuHub-Ytdlp-Builds holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (60/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (8/100). It was last updated 43 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ManojbabuPersonal account

8 followers90 public repossince May 2021Manuhub, Kerala, India

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
NuGet	ManuHub.Deno	2.9.5	-	21	15 days ago	deno deno.exe runtime javascript typescript
NuGet	ManuHub.Ytdlp	6.8.19	-	6	3 days ago	yt-dlp yt-dlp.exe ytdlp ytdlp.exe stable
NuGet	ManuHub.FFmpeg	6.8.22	-	113	0 days ago	ffmpeg ffmpeg.exe ytdlp yt-dlp binary tools
NuGet	ManuHub.FFplay	6.8.22	-	102	0 days ago	ffplay ffplay.exe ffmpeg media player video audio binary tools
NuGet	ManuHub.FFprobe	6.8.22	-	113	0 days ago	ffprobe ffprobe.exe ytdlp yt-dlp binary tools
NuGet	ytdlp-executable	2026.7.4	-	27	43 days ago	yt-dlp deno deno.exe runtime javascript youtube youtube-dl external-runtime

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

44Weak

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 43 days ago
5.5/36	Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
13/18	Commit volume — 27 commits in the last year
7/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

commits_last_year	27
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	43
active_weeks_last_year	8

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 1 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 63 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	1
latest_release_tag	latest
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	63
mean_days_between_releases	—

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?

34At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 2 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	2
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	18
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

65Good

How it's scored

51.9/80	Total downloads — 99,360 downloads all-time across nuget
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	ManuHub.Deno, ManuHub.Ytdlp, ManuHub.FFmpeg, ManuHub.FFplay, ManuHub.FFprobe, ytdlp-executable
dependents	—
ecosystems	nuget
total_downloads	99,360
monthly_downloads	—
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?

37Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	0
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

51Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.9/25	Owner reach — 8 followers of manusoft
23.6/25	Track record — 90 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	8
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	manusoft
public_repos	90
account_age_days	1,935

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 6 package(s) on nuget
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 113 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	ManuHub.Deno, ManuHub.Ytdlp, ManuHub.FFmpeg, ManuHub.FFplay, ManuHub.FFprobe, ytdlp-executable
ecosystems	nuget
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

41Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

41Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
5.2/7.5	Maintained — 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

8Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

2Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2/40	Legible commit history — 1 of 27 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.037
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

13Critical

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — archived/ytdlp.executable/ytdlp.executable.csproj, src/ManuHub.Deno/ManuHub.Deno.csproj, src/ManuHub.FFmpeg/ManuHub.FFmpeg.csproj (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 27
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	archived/ytdlp.executable/ytdlp.executable.csproj, src/ManuHub.Deno/ManuHub.Deno.csproj, src/ManuHub.FFmpeg/ManuHub.FFmpeg.csproj, src/ManuHub.FFplay/ManuHub.FFplay.csproj, src/ManuHub.FFprobe/ManuHub.FFprobe.csproj, src/ManuHub.Ytdlp/ManuHub.Ytdlp.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Key facts

2GitHub stars

1contributors

27commits, last 12 months

43days since last push

1releases

1bus factor

0open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Language breakdown unavailable
Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

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 · 2026-08-23 03:49 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
7	Maintained	9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 1

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
NuGet	ManuHub.Ytdlp	`6.7.4`	archived/ytdlp.executable/ytdlp.executable.csproj

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.

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 — NuGet.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records