Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 03:44 UTC

purescript-deprecated / purescript-generics-rep

Generic programming using an approach inspired by GHC.Generics

No license detected★ 41 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Oct 2016archivedView on GitHub ↗

purescript-deprecated/purescript-generics-rep holds a health index of 12 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (1/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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 35 is calibrated to 29 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

purescript-deprecatedOrganization

0 followers32 public repossince May 2016

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?

21At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,942 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	1,942
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 10 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,727 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~86.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	10
latest_release_tag	v6.1.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	2,727
mean_days_between_releases	86.8

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?

32At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

38Weak

How it's scored

26/60	Stars — 41 stars
9.8/25	Forks — 16 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	16
stars	41
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	no
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

65Good

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	14
top_contributor_share	0.278

Issue & PR responsiveness

86Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.6/30	PR acceptance — 22/28 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	22
open_issues	0
closed_issues	10
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	6
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

66Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of purescript-deprecated
23.1/25	Track record — 32 public repos, account ~10 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	purescript-deprecated
public_repos	32
account_age_days	3,701

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

17Critical · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
0/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

31At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

31At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 10/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	3.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

1Critical · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

1Critical

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
0/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
0/11	Static type checking
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

41GitHub stars

14contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,942days since last push

10releases

2bus factor

0open issues

—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Language breakdown unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10

3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 03:44 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 10/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10	Contributors	project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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