Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 23:12 UTC

sevoniva / llm-coding-bridge

Local bridge for using OpenAI-compatible LLM providers with Codex and Claude coding clients.

JavaScriptMIT★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

sevoniva/llm-coding-bridge holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

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

Ownership

SevonivaOrganization
5 followers12 public repossince Mar 2026

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npm@sevoniva/llm-coding-bridge0.9.0691333 days agocodexclaude-codellmopenai-compatibleresponses-api

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

75Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
4.2/36Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 118 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year118
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year6

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 12 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.8.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release12
mean_days_between_releases5.4
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers0
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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
37.9/80Monthly downloads — 691 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@sevoniva/llm-coding-bridge
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads691
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall
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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project 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 resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 6/6 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
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): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of sevoniva
9.1/25Track record — 12 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsevoniva
public_repos12
account_age_days184

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 33 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@sevoniva/llm-coding-bridge
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanthropic-api, claude-code, codex, llm, nodejs, openai-compatible, responses-api
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

67Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
5/5SAST — SAST tool detected: CodeQL
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages89
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 89 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
38.9/40Legible commit history — 73 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.73
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated 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
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/80 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes47,340
source_files_sampled80
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
1contributors
118commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
10releases
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 5.9 / 10
5.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 23:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
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
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 89

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 89 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@azu/format-text1.0.2indirect
npm@azu/style-format1.0.1indirect
npm@babel/code-frame7.29.7indirect
npm@babel/helper-validator-identifier7.29.7indirect
npm@secretlint/config-creator13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/config-loader13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/core13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/formatter13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/node13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/profiler13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/resolver13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/secretlint-rule-preset-recommend13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/source-creator13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/types13.0.2indirect
npm@secretlint/walker13.0.2indirect
npm@textlint/ast-node-types15.7.1indirect
npm@textlint/linter-formatter15.7.1indirect
npm@textlint/module-interop15.7.1indirect
npm@textlint/resolver15.7.1indirect
npm@textlint/types15.7.1indirect
npm@types/normalize-package-data2.4.4indirect
npmajv8.20.0indirect
npmansi-escapes7.3.0indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmastral-regex2.0.0indirect
npmbinaryextensions6.11.0indirect
npmboundary2.0.0indirect
npmchalk4.1.2indirect
npmchalk5.6.2indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmeditions6.22.0indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmenvironment1.1.0indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmfast-uri3.1.7indirect
npmhas-flag4.0.0indirect
npmhas-flag5.0.1indirect
npmhosted-git-info9.0.3indirect
npmignore7.0.5indirect
npmindex-to-position1.2.0indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmistextorbinary9.5.0indirect
npmjs-tokens4.0.0indirect
npmjs-yaml4.3.2indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse1.0.0indirect
npmjson52.2.3indirect
npmlodash4.18.1indirect
npmlodash.truncate4.4.2indirect
npmlru-cache11.5.1indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnormalize-package-data8.0.0indirect
npmp-map7.0.5indirect
npmparse-json8.3.0indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmpluralize2.0.0indirect
npmpluralize8.0.0indirect
npmrc-config-loader4.1.4indirect
npmread-pkg10.1.0indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmsecretlint13.0.2indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmslice-ansi4.0.0indirect
npmspdx-correct3.2.0indirect
npmspdx-exceptions2.5.0indirect
npmspdx-expression-parse3.0.1indirect
npmspdx-license-ids3.0.23indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.2.0indirect
npmstructured-source4.0.0indirect
npmsupports-color10.2.2indirect
npmsupports-color7.2.0indirect
npmsupports-hyperlinks4.5.0indirect
npmtable6.9.0indirect
npmtagged-tag1.0.0indirect
npmterminal-link5.0.0indirect
npmtext-table0.2.0indirect
npmtextextensions6.11.0indirect
npmtype-fest4.41.0indirect
npmtype-fest5.7.0indirect
npmunicorn-magic0.4.0indirect
npmvalidate-npm-package-license3.0.4indirect
npmversion-range4.15.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 89 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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 statistics — npm.