# tmsBodnar/ardi — health index 8/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository tmsBodnar/ardi by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 8 out of 100, placing it in the Critical 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/tmsBodnar/ardi
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/tmsBodnar/ardi
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/tmsBodnar/ardi/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/tmsBodnar/ardi.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 20/100 | At Risk |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 1/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 19/100 | Critical |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 5/100 | Critical |
| Security | 16% | 11/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 40/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 13 is calibrated to 10 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). Abandonment Policy applies a 85% multiplier to weighted overall health.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Ardi is a command-line tool for compiling, uploading, and watching logs for your usb connected arduino board. Ardi allows you to develop in an environment you feel comfortable, without being forced to use arduino's web or desktop IDEs. |
| Classification | cli |
| Primary language | Go |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2019-12-30 |
| Last push | 2019-10-31 |
| Latest release | v3.2.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Fork | yes |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/robgonnella/ardi/v3 | v3.0.1 | — |

## Vitality — 20/100 (At Risk)

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

### Development activity — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | not met | 0 / 36 | last push 2514 days ago |
| Commit cadence | not met | 0 / 36 | 0/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | not met | 0 / 18 | 0 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 48/100 (Weak)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 5 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 2526 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~7.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 85 / 100 | no human commit for 2514 days; 2 unmet obligation(s): releases stalled, Scorecard reports it unmaintained |

## Community & Adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 22.5 | — |
| License | not met | 0 / 22.5 | no license file detected |
| 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 — 19/100 (Critical)

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) — 10/100 (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 | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 30 | no decided pull requests or no data |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 49/100 (Weak)

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 | 4.3 / 25 | 3 followers of tmsBodnar |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 64 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 5/100 (Critical)

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

### Engineering practices — 1/100 (Critical)

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 | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 10/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 11/100 (Critical)

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 — 11/100 (Critical)

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 | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | not met | 0 / 2.5 | license file not detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 75 existing vulnerabilities detected |

## AI Readiness — 40/100 (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 — 14/100 (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 | partial | 14 / 40 | 20 of 76 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 37/100 (Weak)

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 | go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 76 |
| 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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/15 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Community profile unavailable
- go package 'github.com/robgonnella/ardi/v3' points at a different repository (https://github.com/robgonnella/ardi); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## 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