Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 09:32 UTC

meedan / pender

URL parsing, archiving and rendering service for Meedan Check, a collaborative media annotation platform

HTMLMIT★ 10 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Feb 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined
#oembed#metatags#twitter-cards#opengraph-tags#schema-org#json-ld

meedan/pender holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

87
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.

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)
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MeedanOrganization · verified domain
46 followers99 public repossince Mar 2009

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?

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

63Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 16 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
14.4/18Commit volume — 39 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year39
human_commit_share0.66
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year22

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 99 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 48 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count99
latest_release_tagv0.190.27
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release48
mean_days_between_releases16.9
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?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

30At Risk
How it's scored
15.5/60Stars — 10 stars
9/25Forks — 13 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars10
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

63Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 35% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.347

Issue & PR responsiveness

90Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 555/635 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs555
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs80
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.

Ownership & stewardship

87Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
12/25Owner reach — 46 followers of meedan
25/25Track record — 99 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginmeedan
public_repos99
account_age_days6,407

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 27 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://meedan.com/check
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsoembed, metatags, twitter-cards, opengraph-tags, schema-org, json-ld
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://meedan.com/check
docs_sitehttps://meedan.com/check
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

78Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

73Good
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 — 27 out of 27 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 9/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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
3.8/7.5Maintained — 7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate7.3
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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages154
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1
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 154 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 63 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.955
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — doc/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 34 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesdoc/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.34

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 2/174 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes218,176
source_files_sampled174
oversized_source_files2

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — swagger/v1/swagger.yaml
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesswagger/v1/swagger.yaml
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

10GitHub stars
16contributors
39commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
99releases
2bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
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.

0246810121122017-082020-032022-10
Major 0Minor 27Patch 5

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 09:31 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-Tests27 out of 27 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 9/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained7 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 39
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsrails~> 7.2.2Gemfile
RubyGemspg~> 1.4Gemfile
RubyGemsmemory_profiler—Gemfile
RubyGemslogstash-logger—Gemfile
RubyGemsrailroady—Gemfile
RubyGemssentry-ruby—Gemfile
RubyGemssentry-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemssentry-sidekiq—Gemfile
RubyGemsresponders—Gemfile
RubyGemsyt~> 0.25.5Gemfile
RubyGemsrswag-api—Gemfile
RubyGemsrswag-ui—Gemfile
RubyGemssass-rails—Gemfile
RubyGemspublic_suffix—Gemfile
RubyGemsretryable—Gemfile
RubyGemspuma7.2.1Gemfile
RubyGemsrack-cors>= 2.0.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrails-perftest—Gemfile
RubyGemssidekiq< 8Gemfile
RubyGemsredis4.3.1Gemfile
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4Gemfile
RubyGemshtmlentities—Gemfile
RubyGemsrack-protection2.0.1Gemfile
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1Gemfile
RubyGemssprockets3.7.2Gemfile
RubyGemsrack>= 1.6.11Gemfile
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s3—Gemfile
RubyGemslograge—Gemfile
RubyGemsrequest_store—Gemfile
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0Gemfile
RubyGemsnet-http—Gemfile
RubyGemsnet-imap>= 0.5.14Gemfile
RubyGemsprometheus-client—Gemfile
RubyGemspsych< 4Gemfile
RubyGemsnet-protocol—Gemfile
RubyGemsmini_racer—Gemfile
RubyGemsterser—Gemfile
RubyGemsconnection_pool< 3.0Gemfile
All dependencies 154

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 39 direct and 115 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0direct
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.208.0direct
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.5.5direct
RubyGemshtmlentities4.3.4direct
RubyGemslograge0.14.0direct
RubyGemslogstash-logger0.26.1direct
RubyGemsloofah2.25.2direct
RubyGemsmemory_profiler1.1.0direct
RubyGemsmini_racer0.21.4direct
RubyGemsnet-http0.6.0direct
RubyGemsnet-imap0.5.15direct
RubyGemsnet-protocol0.2.2direct
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4direct
RubyGemspg1.5.9direct
RubyGemsprometheus-client4.2.3direct
RubyGemspsych3.3.4direct
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7direct
RubyGemspuma7.2.1direct
RubyGemsrack2.2.23direct
RubyGemsrack-cors2.0.2direct
RubyGemsrack-protection2.0.1direct
RubyGemsrailroady1.6.0direct
RubyGemsrails7.2.3.2direct
RubyGemsrails-html-sanitizer1.7.1direct
RubyGemsrails-perftest0.0.7direct
RubyGemsredis4.3.1direct
RubyGemsrequest_store1.7.0direct
RubyGemsresponders3.1.1direct
RubyGemsretryable3.0.5direct
RubyGemsrswag-api2.16.0direct
RubyGemsrswag-ui2.16.0direct
RubyGemssass-rails6.0.0direct
RubyGemssentry-rails5.22.1direct
RubyGemssentry-ruby5.22.1direct
RubyGemssentry-sidekiq5.22.1direct
RubyGemssidekiq7.3.7direct
RubyGemssprockets3.7.2direct
RubyGemsterser1.2.5direct
RubyGemsyt0.25.40direct
RubyGemsactioncable7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionmailbox7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionmailer7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionpack7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactiontext7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactionview7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivejob7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivemodel7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactiverecord7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivestorage7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsansi1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsawesome_print1.9.2indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1196.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.240.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.118.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-ips2.14.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsbindex0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsbuilder3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbyebug11.1.3indirect
RubyGemscgi0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemscrack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemscrass1.0.7indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsderailed0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsderailed_benchmarks2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsdiff-lcs1.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdocile1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.6indirect
RubyGemserubi1.13.1indirect
RubyGemsexecjs2.10.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsgem-licenses0.2.2indirect
RubyGemsget_process_mem1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsglobalid1.4.0indirect
RubyGemshashdiff1.1.2indirect
RubyGemsheapy0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.9indirect
RubyGemsjson-schema6.2.0indirect
RubyGemslibv8-node24.12.0.1indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemslogstash-event1.2.02indirect
RubyGemsmail2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsmarcel1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_histogram0.3.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.25.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest-retry0.2.3indirect
RubyGemsmocha2.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-pop0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsnet-smtp0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsnio4r2.7.5indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.1indirect
RubyGemsparallel1.26.3indirect
RubyGemsparallel_tests4.7.2indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrack-session1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrack-test2.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrackup1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsrails-controller-testing1.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrails-dom-testing2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsrailties7.2.3.2indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsredis-client0.23.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-core3.13.6indirect
RubyGemsrspec-expectations3.13.3indirect
RubyGemsrspec-mocks3.13.2indirect
RubyGemsrspec-rails7.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrspec-support3.13.7indirect
RubyGemsrswag-specs2.17.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-statistics4.0.1indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemssassc2.4.0indirect
RubyGemssassc-rails2.1.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimplecov0.13.0indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-console0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssimplecov-html0.10.2indirect
RubyGemsspring4.3.0indirect
RubyGemssprockets-rails3.5.2indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsthor1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstilt2.4.0indirect
RubyGemstimeout0.6.1indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsuseragent0.16.11indirect
RubyGemsweb-console4.2.1indirect
RubyGemswebmock3.24.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-driver0.8.2indirect
RubyGemswebsocket-extensions0.1.5indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.8.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 154 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
mail2.8.1indirectmoderate12.9.1

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with meedan/pender. Read them side by side →

56bhargav-bkpatel/sanity-plugin-seoComplete SEO solution for Sanity. Live scoring, AI-powered suggestions, meta tags, structured data, and team collaboration tools.Moderate90kpumuk/meta-tagsSearch Engine Optimization (SEO) for Ruby on Rails applications.Excellent81equationalapplications/expo-llm-wikiOffline-first, SQLite-backed, tiered, multi-entity memory for LLM apps built with Expo, React, Node, or plain JSExcellent69api-platform/schema-generatorPHP Model Scaffolding from Schema.org and other RDF vocabulariesGood67brotkrueml/schemaTYPO3 extension providing an API and view helpers for schema.org markupGood63php-embed/EmbedGet info from any web service or pageModerate

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.