Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 14:36 UTC

raymondreaming / inferay

TypeScript · RustNo license detected★ 2 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfaceLibraryhow this is determined

raymondreaming/inferay holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

raymondPersonal account
11 followers21 public repossince Dec 2020Reality Designers, Rthmn

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
npmsite2.60.42,9752371330 days agogameappwebsiteframeworkengineanimationhtml5svghtmlwebblog

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume524 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year524
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~2.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.1.104
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases2.6

Community & Adoption

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

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

51Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.956
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance9/10 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs9
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
7.8/25Owner reach11 followers of raymondreaming
21.1/25Track record21 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginraymondreaming
public_repos21
account_age_days2,076
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 1,330 days ago
20/20Version history237 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagessite
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,330

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configbiome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://inferay.com
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://inferay.com
docs_sitehttps://inferay.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate2.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: terser 3.17.0 (high 7.5)
1.8/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories13 affected: babel-traverse 6.26.0 (critical 9.3), xmldom 0.1.19 (critical 9.8), braces 1.8.5 (high 7.5), +10 more
12.1/40No advisories left outstanding13 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2,002 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories24
affected_packages14
assessed_packages270
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 7, moderate 5
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the npm:site@2.60.4 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 270 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history95 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_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapCargo.toml, native/core/Cargo.toml, native/desktop-host/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configbiome.json
11/11Static type checkingsite/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssite/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, native/core/Cargo.toml, native/desktop-host/Cargo.toml, native/diff-engine/Cargo.toml, native/server/Cargo.toml, native/tooling/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes5/447 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes264,800
source_files_sampled447
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

2GitHub stars
3contributors
524commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.1 / 10
2.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 14:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@octanejs/stylex0.1.43package.json
npm@octanejs/tanstack-query0.1.43package.json
npm@octanejs/tanstack-router0.1.43package.json
npm@octanejs/tanstack-start0.1.33package.json
npm@tanstack/query-core5.101.3package.json
npm@yutengjing/vscode-icons0.1.1package.json
npmborder-beam^1.3.0package.json
npmoctane0.1.44package.json
npmreact^19.2.8package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.8package.json
npmshiki^4.4.3package.json
npmtailwindcss^4.3.3package.json
npmvite8.1.5package.json
npmyaml^2.9.0package.json
npm@astrojs/react^5.0.3site/package.json
npm@tailwindcss/vite^4.2.2site/package.json
npm@types/react^19.2.14site/package.json
npm@types/react-dom^19.2.3site/package.json
npmastro^6.1.2site/package.json
npmreact^19.2.5site/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.2.5site/package.json
npmtailwindcss^4.2.2site/package.json
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

Dependency advisories 14

Installing npm:site@2.60.4 pulls in 270 packages, direct and transitive: 14 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
babel-traverse6.26.0indirectcritical18.0.0-alpha.4
xmldom0.1.19indirectcritical90.9.12
terser3.17.0directhigh15.14.2
braces1.8.5indirecthigh13.0.3
braces2.3.2indirecthigh13.0.3
decode-uri-component0.2.2indirecthigh10.5.0
form-data2.3.3indirecthigh24.0.6
json50.5.1indirecthigh12.2.2
uuid3.4.0indirecthigh113.0.1
micromatch2.3.11indirectmoderate14.0.8
micromatch3.1.10indirectmoderate14.0.8
qs6.5.5indirectmoderate26.16.0
request2.88.2indirectmoderate13.0.0
tough-cookie2.5.0indirectmoderate14.1.3

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.

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 statisticsnpm.