Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 19:45 UTC

ryanwaits / secondlayer

Agent-native indexing layer for Stacks

TypeScriptMIT★ 5 stars⑂ 3 forkssince May 2025View on GitHub ↗

ryanwaits/secondlayer holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (30/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RyanPersonal account
47 followers51 public repossince Jan 2013Open to new roles

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

50Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume2,873 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year2,873
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

30At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars5
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

48Weak · 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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance36/38 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_prs36
open_issues0
closed_issues10
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12.1/25Owner reach47 followers of ryanwaits
24.5/25Track record51 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers47
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginryanwaits
public_repos51
account_age_days4,939
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

88Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
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_ciyes
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://secondlayer.tools
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsclarity, react, stacks, typescript
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://secondlayer.tools
docs_sitehttps://secondlayer.tools
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

36Weak · 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
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities42 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. 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.

79Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, packages/stacks/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_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, packages/stacks/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes5,460
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configbiome.json
11/11Static type checkingapps/web/tsconfig.json, examples/sbtc-l1-proof/tsconfig.json, packages/api/tsconfig.json, packages/bundler/tsconfig.json, packages/clarity-docs/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/cloudflare/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/inngest/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/node/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/trigger/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/tsconfig.json, packages/indexer/tsconfig.json, packages/mcp/tsconfig.json, packages/platform/tsconfig.json, packages/scaffold/tsconfig.json, packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/stacks/tsconfig.json, packages/subgraphs/tsconfig.json, packages/worker/tsconfig.json, tools/ops/konsole/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsapps/web/tsconfig.json, examples/sbtc-l1-proof/tsconfig.json, packages/api/tsconfig.json, packages/bundler/tsconfig.json, packages/clarity-docs/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/cloudflare/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/inngest/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/node/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/templates/subscriptions/trigger/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/tsconfig.json, packages/indexer/tsconfig.json, packages/mcp/tsconfig.json, packages/platform/tsconfig.json, packages/scaffold/tsconfig.json, packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/stacks/tsconfig.json, packages/subgraphs/tsconfig.json, packages/worker/tsconfig.json, tools/ops/konsole/tsconfig.json, 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 codeTypeScript (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes2/1,434 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes70,817
source_files_sampled1,434
oversized_source_files2
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

5GitHub stars
1contributors
2,873commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.6 / 10
3.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 19:45 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
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 10 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities42 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk^0.2.63package.json
npm@anthropic-ai/sdk^0.78.0package.json
npmmarked17.0.4package.json
npmpluralize^8.0.0package.json
npmzod^4.3.6package.json
All dependencies 90

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@anthropic-ai/claude-agent-sdk^0.2.63direct
npm@anthropic-ai/sdk^0.78.0direct
npmmarked17.0.4direct
npmpluralize^8.0.0direct
npmzod^4.3.6direct
npm@antfu/ni^24.4.0indirect
npm@aws-sdk/client-s3^3.1042.0indirect
npm@biomejs/biome1.9.4indirect
npm@biomejs/js-api^0.7.0indirect
npm@biomejs/wasm-nodejs^1.9.0indirect
npm@changesets/changelog-git^0.2.1indirect
npm@changesets/changelog-github^0.5.2indirect
npm@changesets/cli^2.29.8indirect
npm@cloudflare/workers-types^4.20250101.0indirect
npm@dsnp/parquetjs^1.8.7indirect
npm@hirosystems/clarinet-sdk^3.0.2indirect
npm@inquirer/prompts^8.2.0indirect
npm@mdx-js/loader^3.1.1indirect
npm@mdx-js/react^3.1.1indirect
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk^1.27.1indirect
npm@next/mdx16.2.10indirect
npm@noble/ciphers2.1.1indirect
npm@noble/curves2.0.1indirect
npm@noble/hashes2.0.1indirect
npm@noble/secp256k12.3.0indirect
npm@scure/bip322.0.1indirect
npm@scure/bip392.0.1indirect
npm@secondlayer/bundler^0.4.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/indexer^1.12.6indirect
npm@secondlayer/scaffold^1.3.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/scaffold^1.4.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/sdk^6.23.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/sdk^6.29.1indirect
npm@secondlayer/shared^4.0.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/shared^4.2.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/shared^7.0.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/stacks^2.11.0indirect
npm@secondlayer/stacks^2.14.1indirect
npm@secondlayer/stacks^2.2.1indirect
npm@secondlayer/subgraphs^3.14.3indirect
npm@secondlayer/subgraphs^3.19.6indirect
npm@secondlayer/subgraphs^3.19.7indirect
npm@secondlayer/subgraphs^3.2.1indirect
npm@stacks/clarinet-sdk3.21.0indirect
npm@stacks/clarinet-sdk3.21.1indirect
npm@stacks/transactions7.0.6indirect
npm@tanstack/react-query5.90.21indirect
npm@tanstack/react-query^5.77.0indirect
npm@trigger.dev/sdk^3.3.0indirect
npm@types/bun^1.1.14indirect
npm@types/bunlatestindirect
npm@types/node^20.11.0indirect
npm@types/node^22.15.0indirect
npm@types/pg^8.15.0indirect
npm@types/pluralize^0.0.33indirect
npm@types/react^19.1.0indirect
npm@types/react^19.1.5indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19.1.0indirect
npmai6.0.167indirect
npmbunup^0.9.0indirect
npmchalk^5.3.0indirect
npmcommander^14.0.0indirect
npmesbuild^0.19.0indirect
npmesbuild^0.27.4indirect
npmexeca^9.5.3indirect
npmexpect-type1.3.0indirect
npmfast-glob^3.3.3indirect
npmgot^13.0.0indirect
npmhono^4.0.0indirect
npmhono^4.6.0indirect
npminngest^3.27.0indirect
npmkysely0.28.15indirect
npmkysely^0.28.15indirect
npmkysely-postgres-js3.0.0indirect
npmnext16.2.10indirect
npmpg^8.16.0indirect
npmpostgres^3.4.6indirect
npmreact19.2.4indirect
npmreact^19.1.0indirect
npmreact-dom19.2.4indirect
npmrehype-slug^6.0.0indirect
npmremark-gfm^4.0.1indirect
npmrough-notation^0.5.1indirect
npmshiki4.0.2indirect
npmsmol-toml^1.6.1indirect
npmstripe^22.0.2indirect
npmtypescript^5indirect
npmtypescript^5.3.3indirect
npmtypescript^5.8.0indirect
npmwrangler^4.0.0indirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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