Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 22:12 UTC

mjwsolo / localcode

High-performance AI coding on consumer hardware

C++ · C · PythonApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverTerminal interfaceLibraryhow this is determined

mjwsolo/localcode holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (92/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (36/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

thecchefPersonal account
6 followers5 public repossince May 2016

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
PyPIlocalcode0.3.32-480 days agoaiclicoding-assistantgemmalocal-firsttui

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume173 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year173
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~11 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.3.29
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases11

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance56/56 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs56
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
6.1/25Owner reach6 followers of mjwsolo
17.7/25Track record5 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmjwsolo
public_repos5
account_age_days3,705
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history48 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageslocalcode
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.flake8, eslint.config.js
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilespackage-lock.json, poetry.lock, uv.lock
manifestsllama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml, llama-cpp-turboquant/requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

92Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsllama-cpp-turboquant/AGENTS.md, llama-cpp-turboquant/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesllama-cpp-turboquant/AGENTS.md, llama-cpp-turboquant/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,857
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapllama-cpp-turboquant/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.flake8, eslint.config.js
11/11Static type checkingllama-cpp-turboquant/gguf-py/gguf/py.typed, llama-cpp-turboquant/mypy.ini, llama-cpp-turboquant/pyrightconfig.json, llama-cpp-turboquant/tools/server/webui/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentNix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json, poetry.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesllama-cpp-turboquant/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsllama-cpp-turboquant/gguf-py/gguf/py.typed, llama-cpp-turboquant/mypy.ini, llama-cpp-turboquant/pyrightconfig.json, llama-cpp-turboquant/tools/server/webui/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.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
51.6/55Manageable file sizes74/1,193 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes4,417,634
source_files_sampled1,193
oversized_source_files74
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

1GitHub stars
1contributors
173commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch pypi package 'llama-cpp-scripts' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/07/19 22:11:34 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Direct dependencies 20
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy^1.25.0llama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPIsentencepiece>=0.1.98,<0.3.0llama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPItransformers>=4.35.2,<5.0.0llama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPIprotobuf>=4.21.0,<5.0.0llama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPIggufllama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPItorch^2.2.0llama-cpp-turboquant/pyproject.toml
PyPIcertifi>=2024.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIddgs>=9.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhf_xet>=1.1.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhuggingface_hub>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIjedi>=0.19.0pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.28.0pyproject.toml
PyPIprompt_toolkit>=3.0.52pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.7.1pyproject.toml
PyPIscikit-learn>=1.3.0pyproject.toml
PyPItextual>=8.2.4pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter>=0.23.0pyproject.toml
PyPItree-sitter-language-pack>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
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.

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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