Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-04 09:40 UTC

thenick775 / mgba

mGBA Game Boy Advance Emulator fork with full WASM support, distributed as an npm package

C · C++MPL-2.0★ 14 stars⑂ 9 forkssince Feb 2023forkView on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationhow this is determined

thenick775/mgba holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). It was last updated 11 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Nicholas VanCisePersonal account
36 followers30 public repossince Jun 2018Nav Technologies, Inc.

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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 11 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 187 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year187
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push11
active_weeks_last_year28

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 27 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 35 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv2.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases2.3
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?

26At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars — 14 stars
7.5/25Forks — 9 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks9
stars14
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

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
1.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 26 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.94
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
29.3/30PR acceptance — 40/41 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_prs40
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.3/25Owner reach — 36 followers of thenick775
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers36
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginthenick775
public_repos30
account_age_days3,024
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .pylintrc
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.npmjs.com/package/@thenick775/mgba-wasm
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsemscripten, emulation, wasm, gba
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/@thenick775/mgba-wasm
docs_sitehttps://www.npmjs.com/package/@thenick775/mgba-wasm
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 26 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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
advisories3
affected_packages1
assessed_packages24
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
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 24 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.

71Good · 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 — 84 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.84
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/decoder/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/encoder/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/preader/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminus/Makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/7z/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/Lzma/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/LzmaLib/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/SfxSetup/makefile, src/third-party/zlib/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/blast/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/minizip/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/puff/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/untgz/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/nintendods/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .pylintrc
11/11Static type checking — src/platform/wasm/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filessrc/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/decoder/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/encoder/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminim/preader/makefile, src/third-party/libpng/contrib/pngminus/Makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/7z/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/Lzma/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/LzmaLib/makefile, src/third-party/lzma/Util/SfxSetup/makefile, src/third-party/zlib/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/blast/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/minizip/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/puff/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/contrib/untgz/Makefile, src/third-party/zlib/nintendods/Makefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssrc/platform/wasm/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestssrc/third-party/zlib/contrib/dotzlib/DotZLib/DotZLib.csproj
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes — 55/1,071 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes9,386,637
source_files_sampled1,071
oversized_source_files55
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 — demos, example, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos, example, examples
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

14GitHub stars
100contributors
187commits, last 12 months
11days since last push
27releases
1bus factor
1open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 9 ⇿
0Stars
9Forks
27Releases

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.

0246810922024-092025-092026-10
Major 1Minor 6Patch 19

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-04 09:40 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
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 26 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
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
0Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@gerrit0/mini-shiki3.23.0indirect
npm@shikijs/engine-oniguruma3.23.0indirect
npm@shikijs/langs3.23.0indirect
npm@shikijs/themes3.23.0indirect
npm@shikijs/types3.23.0indirect
npm@shikijs/vscode-textmate10.0.2indirect
npm@types/emscripten1.41.5indirect
npm@types/hast3.0.5indirect
npm@types/unist3.0.3indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmbalanced-match4.0.4indirect
npmbrace-expansion5.0.9indirect
npmentities4.5.0indirect
npmlinkify-it5.0.2indirect
npmlunr2.3.9indirect
npmmarkdown-it14.3.1indirect
npmmdurl2.1.0indirect
npmminimatch10.2.6indirect
npmpunycode.js2.3.1indirect
npmtypedoc0.28.20indirect
npmtypedoc-github-theme0.4.0indirect
npmtypescript6.0.3indirect
npmuc.micro2.1.0indirect
npmyaml2.9.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 24 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
brace-expansion5.0.9indirecthigh35.0.12

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.