Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 09:41 UTC

scarletkc / vexor

A semantic search engine for files and code.

PythonMIT★ 239 stars⑂ 15 forkssince Nov 2025View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#embeddings #ai #cli #python #search #vector #claude #codex #skills #terminal #mcp-server

scarletkc/vexor holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KcPersonal account

61 followers18 public repossince May 2019@FOGMOE

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
PyPI	vexor	0.29.0	2,304	51	0 days ago	ai cli file semantic-search typer vector

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

76Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.8/36	Commit cadence — 17/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 348 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	348
human_commit_share	0.98
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	17

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 51 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~5.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	51
latest_release_tag	v0.29.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	5.4

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak

How it's scored

38.6/60	Stars — 239 stars
9.6/25	Forks — 15 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	15
stars	239
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
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	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate

How it's scored

44.8/80	Monthly downloads — 2,304 downloads/month across pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	vexor
dependents	—
ecosystems	pypi
total_downloads	—
monthly_downloads	2,304
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

18Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5	Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	2
top_contributor_share	0.994

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate

How it's scored

21/42	Issue resolution — 50% of issues closed
28.5/30	PR acceptance — 57/60 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	57
open_issues	3
closed_issues	3
prs_merged_7d	3
prs_decided_7d	3
prs_merged_30d	26
prs_decided_30d	26
issue_closed_ratio	0.5
closed_unmerged_prs	3
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

55Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.9/25	Owner reach — 61 followers of scarletkc
21.3/25	Track record — 18 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	61
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	scarletkc
public_repos	18
account_age_days	2,658

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

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20	Version history — 51 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	vexor
ecosystems	pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://pypi.org/project/vexor/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 11 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	embeddings, ai, cli, python, search, vector, claude, codex, skills, terminal, mcp-server
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://pypi.org/project/vexor/
docs_site	https://pypi.org/project/vexor/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

58Moderate

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
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	5.8

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	115
unassessed_packages	26
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 115 resolved dependencies against OSV. 26 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 88 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.898
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	4,381

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 22 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	uv.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.22
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.02

Code legibility for models

53Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
52.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 3/77 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	82,028
source_files_sampled	77
oversized_source_files	3

Key facts

239GitHub stars

2contributors

348commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

51releases

1bus factor

3open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
deps.dev does not index pypi:vexor@0.29.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 15 ⇿

0Stars

15Forks

45Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 21Patch 17

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10

5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 09:41 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 6/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 17

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	google-genai	`>=1.57.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	openai	`>=1.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-dotenv	`>=1.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pathspec	`>=0.12.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rank-bm25	`>=0.2.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	numpy	`>=1.23.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tokenizers	`>=0.15.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	typer	`>=0.20.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=13.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`>=3.3.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pypdf	`>=4.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-docx	`>=0.8.11`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	python-pptx	`>=0.6.21`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tree-sitter	`>=0.23.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tree-sitter-javascript	`>=0.23.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tree-sitter-typescript	`>=0.23.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	watchdog	`>=6.0.0`	pyproject.toml

All dependencies 141

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 36 direct and 105 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`—`	direct
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.5.1`	direct
PyPI	google-genai	`—`	direct
PyPI	google-genai	`2.19.0`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`—`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.2.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.4.6`	direct
PyPI	numpy	`2.5.2`	direct
PyPI	openai	`—`	direct
PyPI	openai	`3.3.1`	direct
PyPI	pathspec	`—`	direct
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	direct
PyPI	pypdf	`—`	direct
PyPI	pypdf	`6.16.1`	direct
PyPI	python-docx	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-docx	`1.2.0`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-dotenv	`1.2.3`	direct
PyPI	python-pptx	`—`	direct
PyPI	python-pptx	`1.0.2`	direct
PyPI	rank-bm25	`—`	direct
PyPI	rank-bm25	`0.2.2`	direct
PyPI	rich	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich	`15.0.0`	direct
PyPI	tokenizers	`—`	direct
PyPI	tokenizers	`0.23.1`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter	`—`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter	`0.26.0`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-javascript	`—`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-javascript	`0.25.0`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-typescript	`—`	direct
PyPI	tree-sitter-typescript	`0.23.2`	direct
PyPI	typer	`—`	direct
PyPI	typer	`0.27.1`	direct
PyPI	watchdog	`—`	direct
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	direct
PyPI	altgraph	`0.17.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-doc	`0.0.5`	indirect
PyPI	annotated-types	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	anyio	`4.14.2`	indirect
PyPI	backports-tarfile	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	build	`—`	indirect
PyPI	build	`1.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.7.22`	indirect
PyPI	cffi	`2.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	coloredlogs	`15.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	coverage	`7.15.4`	indirect
PyPI	cryptography	`50.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	distro	`1.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	docutils	`0.23`	indirect
PyPI	exceptiongroup	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	fastembed	`—`	indirect
PyPI	fastembed	`0.8.0`	indirect
PyPI	filelock	`3.32.3`	indirect
PyPI	flashrank	`—`	indirect
PyPI	flashrank	`0.2.10`	indirect
PyPI	flatbuffers	`25.12.19`	indirect
PyPI	fsspec	`2026.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	google-auth	`2.56.3`	indirect
PyPI	h11	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	hatchling	`—`	indirect
PyPI	hf-xet	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore	`1.0.9`	indirect
PyPI	httpcore2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx	`0.28.1`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2	`2.12.0`	indirect
PyPI	httpx2-jsfetch	`1.0`	indirect
PyPI	huggingface-hub	`1.28.0`	indirect
PyPI	humanfriendly	`10.0`	indirect
PyPI	id	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.19`	indirect
PyPI	importlib-metadata	`9.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	iniconfig	`2.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-classes	`3.4.0`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-context	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	jaraco-functools	`4.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	jeepney	`0.9.0`	indirect
PyPI	jiter	`0.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	keyring	`25.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	loguru	`0.7.3`	indirect
PyPI	lxml	`6.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	macholib	`1.16.4`	indirect
PyPI	markdown-it-py	`4.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mdurl	`0.1.2`	indirect
PyPI	mmh3	`5.2.1`	indirect
PyPI	more-itertools	`11.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	mpmath	`1.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	nh3	`0.3.6`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime	`1.23.2`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime	`1.29.0`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime-gpu	`—`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime-gpu	`1.24.1`	indirect
PyPI	onnxruntime-gpu	`1.29.0`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.3`	indirect
PyPI	pefile	`2024.8.26`	indirect
PyPI	pillow	`12.3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pluggy	`1.6.0`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`7.36.0`	indirect
PyPI	py-rust-stemmers	`0.1.8`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1	`0.6.4`	indirect
PyPI	pyasn1-modules	`0.4.2`	indirect
PyPI	pycparser	`3.0`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic	`2.13.4`	indirect
PyPI	pydantic-core	`2.46.4`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.21.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller	`6.22.2`	indirect
PyPI	pyinstaller-hooks-contrib	`2026.6`	indirect
PyPI	pyproject-hooks	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	pyreadline3	`3.5.6`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest	`9.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`—`	indirect
PyPI	pytest-cov	`7.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	pywin32-ctypes	`0.2.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	readme-renderer	`45.0`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	requests-toolbelt	`1.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	rfc3986	`2.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	ruff	`0.16.3`	indirect
PyPI	secretstorage	`3.5.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`84.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	shellingham	`1.5.4`	indirect
PyPI	sniffio	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	sympy	`1.14.0`	indirect
PyPI	tenacity	`9.1.4`	indirect
PyPI	tomli	`2.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	tqdm	`4.70.0`	indirect
PyPI	truststore	`0.10.4`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`—`	indirect
PyPI	twine	`7.0.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect
PyPI	typing-inspection	`0.4.4`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	websockets	`16.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	win32-setctime	`1.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	xlsxwriter	`3.2.9`	indirect
PyPI	zipp	`4.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 115 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 26 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records