# tianshiyeben/wgcloud — health index 54/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository tianshiyeben/wgcloud by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/tianshiyeben/wgcloud
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/tianshiyeben/wgcloud
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/tianshiyeben/wgcloud/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/tianshiyeben/wgcloud.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-20
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 72/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 74/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 29/100 | At Risk |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 65/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 27/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 46/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Linux运维监控工具，支持系统硬件信息，内存，CPU，温度，磁盘空间及IO，硬盘smart，GPU，防火墙，网络流量速率等监控，服务接口监测，大屏展示，拓扑图，端口监控，进程监控，docker监控，日志监控，文件防篡改，数据库监控，指令批量下发执行，web ssh，Linux面板(探针)，告警，SNMP监测，K8S，Redis，Nginx，Kafka，资产管理，计划任务，密码管理，工作笔记 |
| Classification | network-service |
| Homepage | http://www.wgstart.com |
| Primary language | Java |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 5,183 |
| Forks | 909 |
| Created | 2019-01-15 |
| Last push | 2026-09-04 |
| Latest release | v3.7.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 24 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | linux, devops, cpu, memory, sysstat, monitoring-systems, zabbix, nagios, prometheus, springboot, monitoring, wgcloud, webssh2, grafana-dashboard, springboot2, agent, snmp, snmp-agent |

## Vitality — 72/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 16 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 1.4 / 36 | 2/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 12.6 / 18 | 24 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 38 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 17 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~44.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 17 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 74/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 95/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 5,183 stars |
| Forks | partial | 24.7 / 25 | 909 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.5 / 15 | 79 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 29/100 (At Risk)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 21/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 20.7 / 42 | 49% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | not met | 0 / 30 | 0/27 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | not met | 0 / 13 | 0/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 55/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 15.9 / 25 | 161 followers of tianshiyeben |
| Track record | partial | 18.2 / 25 | 6 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 65/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 58/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.js |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | http://www.wgstart.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 27/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 28/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 11 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | no SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 25/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 52 resolved dependencies against OSV; 6 could not be assessed (no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list). 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 2.8 / 35 | 9 affected: com.github.pagehelper:pagehelper 5.1.8 (critical 9.8), org.postgresql:postgresql 42.6.0 (critical 10.0), com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind 2.16.1 (high 8.1), +6 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 16.2 / 40 | 7 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2271 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 46/100 (Weak)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | not met | 0 / 40 | 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 63/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | wgcloud-agent/pom.xml, wgcloud-server/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Java (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Java (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 49.2 / 55 | 104/984 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos, example |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch maven package 'com.wgcloud:wgcloud-agent' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'com.wgcloud:wgcloud-server' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt