Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 20:05 UTC
marcusrbrown / systematic
Structured engineering workflows for OpenCode
marcusrbrown/systematic holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
87
overall / 100Software 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.
87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Marcus R. BrownPersonal account
174 followers111 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
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @fro.bot/systematic | 2.33.3 | 4,788 | 144 | 1 day ago | opencodepluginaiworkflowengineering |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
89
Development activity
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 18/36 | Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 575 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 575 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 26 |
Release discipline
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 100 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 1 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~4.1 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 100 |
| latest_release_tag | v2.33.3 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 1 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 4.1 |
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?
47
Popularity & adoption
22At Risk
How it's scored
| 21.8/60 | Stars — 23 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 2 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 0 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 2 |
| stars | 23 |
| watchers | 0 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
65Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Ecosystem adoption (downloads)
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 49.1/80 | Monthly downloads — 4,788 downloads/month across npm |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem |
Inputs used
| packages | @fro.bot/systematic |
| dependents | — |
| ecosystems | npm |
| total_downloads | — |
| monthly_downloads | 4,788 |
| 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?
66
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
34At Risk
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 9.7/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits |
| 5.4/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 4 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 4 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.57 |
How it's scored
| 37.8/42 | Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed |
| 29.6/30 | PR acceptance — 591/600 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 1.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 591 |
| open_issues | 3 |
| closed_issues | 27 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.9 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 9 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 16.1/25 | Owner reach — 174 followers of marcusrbrown |
| 25/25 | Track record — 111 public repos, account ~15 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 174 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | marcusrbrown |
| public_repos | 111 |
| account_age_days | 5,518 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 144 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | @fro.bot/systematic |
| ecosystems | npm |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 1 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
86
Engineering practices
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 8 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — biome.json |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://fro.bot/systematic |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 7 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | ai, bun, opencode, plugin, semantic-release, systematic, workflow |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://fro.bot/systematic |
| docs_site | https://fro.bot/systematic |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
70
Security posture
70Good
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — no data |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0.8/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
| 5/5 | SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 7.5/7.5 | Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 60 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 16 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 2 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 7 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.
92
Agent context & guidance
75Good
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent 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 |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| 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_bytes | 8,423 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — mise.toml |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — biome.json |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — docs/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | package-lock.json |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | mise.toml |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | docs/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| 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.
Code legibility for models
99Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed) |
| 53.7/55 | Manageable file sizes — 2/84 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | TypeScript |
| largest_source_bytes | 108,265 |
| source_files_sampled | 84 |
| oversized_source_files | 2 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
23GitHub stars
4contributors
575commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3open issues
npmpackage ecosystems
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| n/a | Branch-Protection | internal 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 |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 1 | Code-Review | Found 4/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 10 | Pinned-Dependencies | all dependencies are pinned |
| 10 | SAST | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| 10 | Token-Permissions | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 60 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 7
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @astrojs/starlight | ^0.39.0 | docs/package.json |
| npm | astro | ^6.4.2 | docs/package.json |
| npm | rehype-mermaid | ^3.0.0 | docs/package.json |
| npm | sharp | ^0.34.0 | docs/package.json |
| npm | js-yaml | ^4.1.1 | package.json |
| npm | jsonc-parser | ^3.3.0 | package.json |
| npm | zod | 4.4.3 | package.json |
All dependencies 37
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 29 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @astrojs/starlight | ^0.39.0 | direct |
| npm | astro | ^6.4.2 | direct |
| npm | js-yaml | ^4.1.1 | direct |
| npm | jsonc-parser | ^3.3.0 | direct |
| npm | rehype-mermaid | ^3.0.0 | direct |
| npm | sharp | ^0.34.0 | direct |
| npm | zod | 4.1.8 | direct |
| npm | zod | 4.4.3 | direct |
| npm | @biomejs/biome | 2.5.3 | indirect |
| npm | @opencode-ai/plugin | 1.17.18 | indirect |
| npm | @opencode-ai/plugin | 1.3.15 | indirect |
| npm | @opencode-ai/sdk | 1.17.18 | indirect |
| npm | @opencode-ai/sdk | 1.3.15 | indirect |
| npm | @semantic-release/exec | 7.1.0 | indirect |
| npm | @types/bun | latest | indirect |
| npm | @types/js-yaml | 4.0.9 | indirect |
| npm | @types/node | 24.13.3 | indirect |
| npm | ajv | 8.20.0 | indirect |
| npm | ajv-formats | 3.0.1 | indirect |
| npm | conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits | 9.3.1 | indirect |
| npm | cross-spawn | 7.0.6 | indirect |
| npm | express | ^4.19.2 | indirect |
| npm | express-session | ^1.18.0 | indirect |
| npm | isexe | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| npm | markdownlint-cli | 0.48.0 | indirect |
| npm | path-key | 3.1.1 | indirect |
| npm | pg | ^8.11.5 | indirect |
| npm | playwright | 1.61.1 | indirect |
| npm | rimraf | 6.1.3 | indirect |
| npm | semantic-release | 25.0.6 | indirect |
| npm | semantic-release-export-data | 1.2.0 | indirect |
| npm | shebang-command | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| npm | shebang-regex | 3.0.0 | indirect |
| npm | typescript | 6.0.3 | indirect |
| npm | which | 2.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-genai | — | indirect |
| PyPI | pillow | — | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — npm.