Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 03:48 UTC

sabertaz / dotfiles

Hackable personal dotfiles managed with chezmoi

QML · Shell · PythonMIT★ 17 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationhow this is determined
#archlinux#bash#claude-code#dotfiles#ghostty#git#gnome#go#kde#mpv#neovim#niri#python#rime#rust#starship#tmux#typescript#wakatime#zsh

sabertaz/dotfiles holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (44/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SabertazPersonal account
81 followers11 public repossince May 2015

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?

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

65Good
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 44 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 416 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year416
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year27

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 51 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~16.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release51
mean_days_between_releases16.1
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

20At Risk
How it's scored
19.5/60Stars — 17 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars17
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges26
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

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)

16Critical
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
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 20/20 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs20
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
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

55Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.8/25Owner reach — 81 followers of sabertaz
19.9/25Track record — 11 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers81
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsabertaz
public_repos11
account_age_days4,130
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

44Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsarchlinux, bash, claude-code, dotfiles, ghostty, git, gnome, go, kde, mpv, neovim, niri, python, rime, rust, starship, tmux, typescript, wakatime, zsh
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories3
affected_packages1
assessed_packages73
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 73 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

48Weak · 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 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,074

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

18Critical
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.05

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — QML without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageQML
largest_source_bytes26,297
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

17GitHub stars
1contributors
416commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 03:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 73

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 73 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@conventional-changelog/git-client3.1.0indirect
npm@conventional-changelog/template1.2.1indirect
npm@nodable/entities2.1.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/child-process-utils2.0.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/hosted-git-info2.0.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/normalize-package-data1.0.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/stream-utils2.0.0indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-styles3.2.1indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmargue-cli3.1.0indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.0indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.14indirect
npmchalk2.4.2indirect
npmcliui8.0.1indirect
npmcolor-convert1.9.3indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.3indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmcommit-and-tag-version13.0.0indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmconventional-changelog8.1.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-config-spec2.1.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits10.2.1indirect
npmconventional-changelog-preset-loader6.0.1indirect
npmconventional-changelog-writer9.2.0indirect
npmconventional-commits-filter6.0.1indirect
npmconventional-commits-parser7.1.0indirect
npmconventional-recommended-bump12.1.0indirect
npmdetect-indent6.1.0indirect
npmdetect-newline3.1.0indirect
npmdotgitignore2.1.0indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmescape-string-regexp1.0.5indirect
npmfast-xml-builder1.2.0indirect
npmfast-xml-parser5.8.0indirect
npmfd-package-json2.0.0indirect
npmfigures3.2.0indirect
npmfind-up3.0.0indirect
npmfind-up5.0.0indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmhas-flag3.0.0indirect
npmhusky9.1.7indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmlint-staged17.1.0indirect
npmlocate-path3.0.0indirect
npmlocate-path6.0.0indirect
npmminimatch3.1.5indirect
npmp-limit2.2.0indirect
npmp-limit3.0.2indirect
npmp-locate3.0.0indirect
npmp-locate5.0.0indirect
npmp-try2.2.0indirect
npmpath-exists3.0.0indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-expression-matcher1.5.0indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmrequire-directory2.1.1indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmstring-argv0.3.2indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrnum2.3.0indirect
npmsupports-color5.5.0indirect
npmtinyexec1.2.4indirect
npmwalk-up-path4.0.0indirect
npmwrap-ansi7.0.0indirect
npmxml-naming0.1.0indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyaml2.9.0indirect
npmyargs17.7.2indirect
npmyargs-parser21.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 73 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
brace-expansion1.1.14indirecthigh35.0.9

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 sabertaz/dotfiles. Read them side by side →

100go-gitea/giteaGit with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CDExceptional99awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional99taskforcesh/bullmqBullMQ - Message Queue and Batch processing for NodeJS, Python, .NET, Elixir, Rust and PHP based on Redis or PostgreSQLExceptional98pulumi/pulumiPulumi - Infrastructure as Code in any programming language 🚀Exceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional99WeblateOrg/weblateWeb based localization tool with tight version control integration.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.