Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 05:14 UTC

sheepzh / timer

Time Tracker for Browser. Help you track time, analyze your habits and block addictive sites

TypeScriptMIT★ 930 stars⑂ 72 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindWeb interfaceBrowser extensionhow this is determined

sheepzh/timer holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

sheepiePersonal account
101 followers46 public repossince May 2016Alibaba

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 publish
npmtt4bpoints to another repo — not scored0.0.1-security101542 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume390 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year390
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases32 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 636 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~96.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count32
latest_release_tagv2.5.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release636
mean_days_between_releases96.1

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.1/60Stars930 stars
15.4/25Forks72 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks72
stars930
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.91
How it's scored
41.1/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
21.9/30PR acceptance282/387 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs282
open_issues9
closed_issues428
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.979
closed_unmerged_prs105
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
14.4/25Owner reach101 followers of sheepzh
24.2/25Track record46 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers101
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginsheepzh
public_repos46
account_age_days3,711
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.wfhg.cc
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsedge-extension, time-tracking, chrome-extension, firefox-addon
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.wfhg.cc
docs_sitehttps://www.wfhg.cc
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/23 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
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
18/45Agent instructions.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/code-review.md (stub)
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/code-review.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes100
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
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/656 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes36,950
source_files_sampled656
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

930GitHub stars
13contributors
390commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
32releases
1bus factor
9open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • npm package 'tt4b' points at a different repository (npm/security-holder); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.0 / 10
5.0aggregate

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 05:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests8 out of 11 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 28 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmhash.js^1.1.7examples/package.json
npm@element-plus/icons-vue^2.3.2package.json
npm@emotion/css^11.13.5package.json
npmecharts^6.1.0package.json
npmelement-plus2.14.3package.json
npmhash.js^1.1.7package.json
npmqrcode-generator^2.0.4package.json
npmtypescript-guard0.2.6package.json
npmvue^3.5.39package.json
npmvue-router^5.1.0package.json
All dependencies 39

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@element-plus/icons-vue^2.3.2direct
npm@emotion/css^11.13.5direct
npmecharts^6.1.0direct
npmelement-plus2.14.3direct
npmhash.js^1.1.7direct
npmqrcode-generator^2.0.4direct
npmtypescript-guard0.2.6direct
npmvue^3.5.39direct
npmvue-router^5.1.0direct
npm@commitlint/types^21.2.0indirect
npm@crowdin/crowdin-api-client^1.56.1indirect
npm@emotion/babel-plugin^11.13.5indirect
npm@rsdoctor/rspack-plugin^1.5.18indirect
npm@rspack/cli^2.1.3indirect
npm@rspack/core^2.1.3indirect
npm@rstest/core^0.11.1indirect
npm@rstest/coverage-istanbul^0.11.1indirect
npm@types/chrome0.2.2indirect
npm@types/decompress^4.2.7indirect
npm@types/firefox-webext-browser^143.0.0indirect
npm@types/node^26.1.1indirect
npm@vue/babel-plugin-jsx^3.0.0indirect
npmbabel-loader^10.1.1indirect
npmcommitlint^21.2.1indirect
npmcss-loader^7.1.4indirect
npmdecompress^4.2.1indirect
npmfake-indexeddb^6.2.5indirect
npmhusky^9.1.7indirect
npmjsdom^29.1.1indirect
npmjszip^3.10.1indirect
npmknip^6.26.0indirect
npmpostcss^8.5.16indirect
npmpostcss-loader^8.2.1indirect
npmpostcss-rtlcss^6.0.0indirect
npmpuppeteer^25.3.0indirect
npmts-checker-rspack-plugin^1.5.2indirect
npmtsx^4.23.0indirect
npmtypescript7.0.2indirect
npmunplugin-element-plus^0.11.2indirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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