Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 20:13 UTC

marcusrbrown / systematic

Compound-engineering loops for OpenCode, Pi, and Claude Code

TypeScriptMIT★ 24 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

marcusrbrown/systematic holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Marcus R. BrownPersonal account
177 followers112 public repossince Jun 2011

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
npm@fro.bot/systematic3.16.59,4552110 days agoopencodepluginaiworkflowengineering

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

92Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
22.8/36Commit cadence — 33/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 860 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year860
human_commit_share0.64
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year33

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.16.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.6
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?

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
22.1/60Stars — 24 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars24
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
53/80Monthly downloads — 9,455 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@fro.bot/systematic
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads9,455
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?

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.926
How it's scored
37.2/42Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed
29.6/30PR acceptance — 886/897 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs886
open_issues7
closed_issues54
prs_merged_7d41
prs_decided_7d41
prs_merged_30d41
prs_decided_30d41
issue_closed_ratio0.885
closed_unmerged_prs11
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.2/25Owner reach — 177 followers of marcusrbrown
25/25Track record — 112 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers177
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmarcusrbrown
public_repos112
account_age_days5,573
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 npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 211 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@fro.bot/systematic
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://fro.bot/systematic
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, bun, opencode, plugin, semantic-release, systematic, workflow
has_wikino
homepagehttps://fro.bot/systematic
docs_sitehttps://fro.bot/systematic
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 25 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages33
unassessed_packages9
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 33 resolved dependencies against OSV. 9 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.

88Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, docs/AGENTS.md, registry/files/profiles/omo/AGENTS.md, registry/files/profiles/standalone/AGENTS.md, src/lib/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 64 of 64 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, docs/AGENTS.md, registry/files/profiles/omo/AGENTS.md, registry/files/profiles/standalone/AGENTS.md, src/lib/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,913
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json
11/11Static type checking — docs/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdocs/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
50/55Manageable file sizes — 14/154 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes239,701
source_files_sampled154
oversized_source_files14
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

24GitHub stars
2contributors
860commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
7open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index npm:@fro.bot/systematic@3.16.5; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
32Releases

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.

111222212026-042026-062026-07
Major 0Minor 14Patch 18
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.5 / 10
7.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 20:13 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
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-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 5 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 29 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities25 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmjs-yaml^4.3.1package.json
npmjsonc-parser^3.3.0package.json
npmtree-sitter-bash0.25.1package.json
npmweb-tree-sitter0.27.0package.json
npmzod4.5.4package.json
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmjs-yaml^4.3.1direct
npmjsonc-parser^3.3.0direct
npmtree-sitter-bash0.25.1direct
npmweb-tree-sitter0.27.0direct
npmzod4.1.8direct
npmzod4.5.4direct
npm@astrojs/starlight^0.41.3indirect
npm@biomejs/biome2.5.12indirect
npm@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent0.83.0indirect
npm@opencode-ai/plugin1.18.29indirect
npm@opencode-ai/plugin1.3.15indirect
npm@opencode-ai/sdk1.18.29indirect
npm@opencode-ai/sdk1.3.15indirect
npm@semantic-release/exec7.1.0indirect
npm@tintinweb/pi-subagents0.14.3indirect
npm@types/bunlatestindirect
npm@types/js-yaml4.0.9indirect
npm@types/node26.4.1indirect
npmagent-browser0.34.0indirect
npmajv8.20.0indirect
npmajv-formats3.0.1indirect
npmastro^7.0.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits10.4.0indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.6indirect
npmexpress^4.19.2indirect
npmexpress-session^1.18.0indirect
npmisexe2.0.0indirect
npmmarkdownlint-cli0.49.1indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmpg^8.11.5indirect
npmplaywright1.63.0indirect
npmrehype-mermaid^3.0.0indirect
npmremark-gfm4.0.1indirect
npmrimraf6.1.3indirect
npmsemantic-release25.0.9indirect
npmsemantic-release-export-data1.2.0indirect
npmsharp^0.35.0indirect
npmshebang-command2.0.0indirect
npmshebang-regex3.0.0indirect
npmtypebox1.3.27indirect
npmtypescript7.0.2indirect
npmwhich2.0.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 33 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 9 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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