Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 07:23 UTC

simonoppowa / OpenNutriTracker

🍴 OpenNutriTracker is a free and open source calorie tracker with a focus on simplicity and privacy.

DartGPL-3.0★ 2,510 stars⑂ 343 forkssince Sep 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

simonoppowa/OpenNutriTracker holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (87/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Simon OppowaPersonal account
98 followers21 public repossince Dec 2016

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?

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence — 23/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 785 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year785
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv2.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases13.7

Community & Adoption

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

87Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
55.1/60Stars — 2,510 stars
21.1/25Forks — 343 forks
6.4/15Watchers — 15 watchers
Inputs used
forks343
stars2,510
watchers15
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 (GPL-3.0)
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_badges8
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 37 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled37
top_contributor_share0.662
How it's scored
34.5/42Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
24.6/30PR acceptance — 487/594 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs487
open_issues94
closed_issues433
prs_merged_7d36
prs_decided_7d40
prs_merged_30d37
prs_decided_30d41
issue_closed_ratio0.822
closed_unmerged_prs107
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.3/25Owner reach — 98 followers of simonoppowa
21.8/25Track record — 21 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers98
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsimonoppowa
public_repos21
account_age_days3,566
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 19 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsandroid, calories-tracker, flutter, ios, nutrition, open-source, fitness, health, clean-architecture, dart, diet, barcode-scanner, calorie-counter, food-diary, foss, intermittent-fasting, nutrition-tracker, open-food-facts, privacy
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?

60Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 30 commit(s) and 24 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
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 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.

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_packages129
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 129 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.

87Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://platform.claude.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://platform.claude.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes28,705
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — justfile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Dart (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Nix, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsandroid/app/build.gradle, android/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Dart (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 6/710 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageDart
largest_source_bytes124,725
source_files_sampled710
oversized_source_files6
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — recipes
Inputs used
example_dirsrecipes
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

2,510GitHub stars
37contributors
785commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
94open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 343 ⇿
0Stars
343Forks
20Releases

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.

012525037533562023-092025-032026-09
Major 2Minor 7Patch 7

Each point covers 3 days.

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 · 2026-09-12 07:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 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 0/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 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 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane~> 2.238android/Gemfile
RubyGemsfastlane~> 2.238ios/Gemfile
RubyGemscocoapods~> 1.17.0ios/Gemfile
RubyGemsrexml>= 3.3.6ios/Gemfile
RubyGemsffi>= 1.15.0ios/Gemfile
All dependencies 129

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 125 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemscocoapods1.17.0direct
RubyGemsfastlane2.238.0direct
RubyGemsffi1.17.4direct
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4direct
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsalgoliasearch1.27.5indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1281.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.254.1indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.130.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.229.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-core1.17.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-deintegrate1.0.5indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-downloader2.1indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-plugins1.0.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-search1.0.1indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-trunk1.6.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-try1.2.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.8indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20240107indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsethon0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfourflusher2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsfuzzy_match2.0.4indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.106.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core1.2.5indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.66.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.2.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.3indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.15.2indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsmolinillo0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnap1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.1.3indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-macho4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.6.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-emoji4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 129 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.