Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 03:35 UTC

mudrii / hermesd

TUI monitoring dashboard for Hermes AI agent

PythonMIT★ 118 stars⑂ 10 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryWeb interfaceTerminal interfacehow this is determined

mudrii/hermesd holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (44/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mudriiPersonal account
59 followers100 public repossince Mar 2010https://zerivant.ai

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
PyPIhermesd2026.9.1319172 days agoagentdashboardhermesmonitoringterminaltui

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

70Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 331 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year331
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~26.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv2026.9.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases26.2
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak
How it's scored
33.5/60Stars — 118 stars
8/25Forks — 10 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks10
stars118
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

77Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

38Weak
How it's scored
30.4/80Monthly downloads — 191 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packageshermesd
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads191
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?

44Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

19Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
8.4/30PR acceptance — 7/25 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs7
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d3
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs18
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.8/25Owner reach — 59 followers of mudrii
25/25Track record — 100 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers59
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmudrii
public_repos100
account_age_days6,033
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 pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 7 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packageshermesd
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

81Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

76Good
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages10
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:hermesd@2026.9.13 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 10 packages. 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.

75Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,342

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

67Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — hermesd/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configshermesd/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

76Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (hermesd/py.typed)
49.2/55Manageable file sizes — 12/114 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes198,936
source_files_sampled114
oversized_source_files12

Key facts

118GitHub stars
1contributors
331commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 10 ⇿
0Stars
10Forks
5Releases

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.

02468101032026-042026-062026-08
Major 0Minor 0Patch 5
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 03:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIrich==14.3.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml==6.0.3pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic==2.13.4pyproject.toml
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 65 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIpydantic2.13.4direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIrich14.3.3direct
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIbackports-tarfile1.2.0indirect
PyPIboolean-py5.0indirect
PyPIcachecontrol0.14.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.2.25indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.7indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.16.0indirect
PyPIcryptography50.0.1indirect
PyPIcyclonedx-python-lib11.7.0indirect
PyPIdefusedxml0.7.1indirect
PyPIdocutils0.23indirect
PyPIfilelock3.28.0indirect
PyPIhermesd2026.9.13indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.17indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata9.0.0indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-classes3.4.0indirect
PyPIjaraco-context6.1.2indirect
PyPIjaraco-functools4.5.0indirect
PyPIjeepney0.9.0indirect
PyPIkeyring25.7.0indirect
PyPIlibrt0.9.0indirect
PyPIlicense-expression30.4.4indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImore-itertools11.1.0indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPImypy1.20.1indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInh30.3.6indirect
PyPIpackageurl-python0.17.6indirect
PyPIpackaging26.3indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.4indirect
PyPIpip26.2.1indirect
PyPIpip-api0.0.34indirect
PyPIpip-audit2.10.1indirect
PyPIpip-requirements-parser32.0.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.9.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpy-serializable2.1.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.4indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.2indirect
PyPIpytest9.1.1indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.1.0indirect
PyPIpywin32-ctypes0.2.3indirect
PyPIreadme-renderer45.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.1indirect
PyPIrequests-toolbelt1.0.0indirect
PyPIrfc39862.0.0indirect
PyPIruff0.16.6indirect
PyPIsecretstorage3.5.0indirect
PyPIsortedcontainers2.4.0indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomli-w1.2.0indirect
PyPItwine7.0.0indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml6.0.12.20260906indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIzipp4.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:hermesd@2026.9.13 pulls in 10 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with mudrii/hermesd. Read them side by side →

99ratatui/ratatuiA Rust crate for cooking up terminal user interfaces (TUIs) 👨‍🍳🐀 https://ratatui.rsExceptional94vinhnx/VTCodeVT Code is an open-source Rust terminal coding agent.Exceptional97nicolargo/glancesGlances an Eye on your system. A top/htop alternative for GNU/Linux, BSD, macOS and Windows operating systems.Exceptional96Canner/WrenAIGenBI (Generative BI) for AI agents, an open-source, governed text-to-SQL through an open context layer that turns natural-language questions into trusted dashboards, charts, and SQL across 20+ data sources, such as BigQuery, Snowflake, PostgreSQL, ClickHouse, Amazon Redshift, Databricks and more.Exceptional95MemTensor/MemOSSelf-evolving memory OS for LLM & AI Agents: ultra-persistent memory, hybrid-retrieval, and cross-task skill reuse, with 35.24% token savings and DeepSeek Harness support.Exceptional94langchain-ai/deepagentsThe batteries-included agent harness.Exceptional

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 — PyPI.