Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 01:24 UTC

sycdan / nosedive

Turns a plain notes repo into a bridge: one repo that holds the plan and drives agentic work across your other repos.

JavaScript · TypeScriptMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

sycdan/nosedive holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (38/100). It was last updated 9 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

Dan StacePersonal account
1 follower44 public repossince Jun 2014

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 publishTags
npmnosedive2026.9.181,76032232 days agocliagenticworkflowmulti-repopolyrepocross-repometarepotoolingdevex

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 9 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 858 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year858
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 32 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv2026.9.18
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release32
mean_days_between_releases2.6
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?

38Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
43.3/80Monthly downloads — 1,760 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesnosedive
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads1,760
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?

51Moderate · 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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 183/183 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs183
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of sycdan
24/25Track record — 44 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginsycdan
public_repos44
account_age_days4,501
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 32 days ago
20/20Version history — 322 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesnosedive
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish32

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://nosedive.dev/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdeveloper-tools, git, workflow, worktrees, agent, agent-framework, agent-memory, agent-orchestration, agentic, agentic-ai, agentic-workflow, agents, polyrepo, metarepo, context, context-engineering, context-management, mcp
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://nosedive.dev/
docs_sitehttps://nosedive.dev/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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 — 2 out of 2 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the npm:nosedive@2026.9.18 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 packages. 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 81 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.81
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (tsconfig.json)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 3/276 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes185,010
source_files_sampled276
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
858commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 01:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 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 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmajv^8.20.0package.json
npmmarked^18.0.14package.json
npmyaml^2.9.0package.json
All dependencies 108

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 105 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmajv8.20.0direct
npmmarked18.0.14direct
npmyaml2.9.0direct
npm@esbuild/aix-ppc640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/android-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/darwin-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/freebsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ia320.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-loong640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-mips64el0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-ppc640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-riscv640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-s390x0.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/linux-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/netbsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openbsd-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/openharmony-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/sunos-x640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-arm640.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-ia320.27.7indirect
npm@esbuild/win32-x640.27.7indirect
npm@jridgewell/gen-mapping0.3.13indirect
npm@jridgewell/resolve-uri3.1.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@jridgewell/trace-mapping0.3.31indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-android-arm-eabi4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-android-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-darwin-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-darwin-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-freebsd-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-freebsd-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-gnueabihf4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm-musleabihf4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-arm64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-loong64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-ppc64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-riscv64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-s390x-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-linux-x64-musl4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-openbsd-x644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-openharmony-arm644.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-arm64-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-ia32-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-gnu4.62.2indirect
npm@rollup/rollup-win32-x64-msvc4.62.2indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@types/node26.1.0indirect
npmacorn8.17.0indirect
npmany-promise1.3.0indirect
npmbundle-require5.1.0indirect
npmcac6.7.14indirect
npmchokidar4.0.3indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmconfbox0.1.8indirect
npmconsola3.4.2indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmesbuild0.27.7indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmfast-uri3.1.8indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfix-dts-default-cjs-exports1.0.1indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmjoycon3.1.1indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse1.0.0indirect
npmlilconfig3.1.3indirect
npmlines-and-columns1.2.4indirect
npmload-tsconfig0.2.5indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.21indirect
npmmlly1.8.2indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmmz2.7.0indirect
npmobject-assign4.1.1indirect
npmpathe2.0.3indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmpirates4.0.7indirect
npmpkg-types1.3.1indirect
npmpostcss-load-config6.0.1indirect
npmprettier3.9.6indirect
npmreaddirp4.1.2indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmresolve-from5.0.0indirect
npmrollup4.62.2indirect
npmsource-map0.7.6indirect
npmsucrase3.35.1indirect
npmthenify3.3.1indirect
npmthenify-all1.6.0indirect
npmtinyexec0.3.2indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtree-kill1.2.2indirect
npmts-interface-checker0.1.13indirect
npmtsup8.5.1indirect
npmtypescript6.0.3indirect
npmufo1.6.4indirect
npmundici-types8.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing npm:nosedive@2026.9.18 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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.