Software health reportschema 0.30.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-04 11:37 UTC

treefrogframework / treefrog-framework

TreeFrog Framework : High-speed C++ MVC Framework for Web Application

C++ · JavaScriptBSD-3-Clause★ 1,376 stars⑂ 225 forkssince Dec 2012View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#websocket #mongodb #redis #mysql #postgresql #json #cbor #orm #webserver #webapp #cross-platform #mvc #cpp #memcached #web #c-plus-plus #template #framework #sql

treefrogframework/treefrog-framework holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (49/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TreeFrog FrameworkPersonal account

248 followers9 public repossince Dec 2012TreeFrog Framework Project

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?

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 5 days ago
14.5/36	Commit cadence — 21/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 106 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	106
human_commit_share	0.91
days_since_last_push	5
active_weeks_last_year	21

Release discipline

76Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 49 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 17 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~134.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	49
latest_release_tag	v2.12.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	17
mean_days_between_releases	134.4

Community & Adoption

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

67Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

81Excellent

How it's scored

50.9/60	Stars — 1,376 stars
19.6/25	Forks — 225 forks
10.6/15	Watchers — 82 watchers

Inputs used

forks	225
stars	1,376
watchers	82
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

54Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

36Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 67% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	18
top_contributor_share	0.671

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good

How it's scored

41.3/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
22.1/30	PR acceptance — 151/205 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	151
open_issues	4
closed_issues	226
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.983
closed_unmerged_prs	54
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.2/25	Owner reach — 248 followers of treefrogframework
19.3/25	Track record — 9 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	248
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	treefrogframework
public_repos	9
account_age_days	4,986

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

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

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://www.treefrogframework.org
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 19 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	websocket, mongodb, redis, mysql, postgresql, json, cbor, orm, webserver, webapp, cross-platform, mvc, cpp, memcached, web, c-plus-plus, template, framework, sql
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://www.treefrogframework.org
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

57Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected: CodeQL
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	5.7

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): ci_tests, packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	103
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 103 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
1.2/40	Legible commit history — 2 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.022
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

69Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/contrib/djgpp/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/contrib/gen_manual/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/examples/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/lib/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/lib/dll/example/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/ossfuzz/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/programs/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/tests/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/docs/dev/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/src/libmongoc/examples/cmake/vcpkg/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/src/zlib-1.3.1/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — C++ (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Gemfile.lock, uv.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/contrib/djgpp/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/contrib/gen_manual/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/examples/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/lib/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/lib/dll/example/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/ossfuzz/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/programs/Makefile, 3rdparty/lz4-1.10.0/tests/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/docs/dev/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/src/libmongoc/examples/cmake/vcpkg/Makefile, 3rdparty/mongo-c-driver-2.3.3/src/zlib-1.3.1/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.09

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
52.8/55	Manageable file sizes — 64/1,588 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	C++
largest_source_bytes	1,937,396
source_files_sampled	1,588
oversized_source_files	64

Machine-readable interfaces

40Weak

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — example, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	example, examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—

Key facts

1,376GitHub stars

18contributors

106commits, last 12 months

5days since last push

49releases

1bus factor

4open issues

RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'mongo-c-driver' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 225 ⇿

0Stars

225Forks

48Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 35Patch 12

Each point covers 13 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10

5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 11:36 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10	SAST	SAST tool detected: CodeQL
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5	Vulnerabilities	5 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 103

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 103 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
RubyGems	activesupport	`7.2.3.1`	indirect
RubyGems	addressable	`2.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	base64	`0.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	benchmark	`0.5.0`	indirect
RubyGems	bigdecimal	`4.0.1`	indirect
RubyGems	coffee-script	`2.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	coffee-script-source	`1.12.2`	indirect
RubyGems	colorator	`1.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	commonmarker	`0.23.10`	indirect
RubyGems	concurrent-ruby	`1.3.7`	indirect
RubyGems	connection_pool	`3.0.2`	indirect
RubyGems	dnsruby	`1.61.9`	indirect
RubyGems	drb	`2.2.3`	indirect
RubyGems	em-websocket	`0.5.3`	indirect
RubyGems	ethon	`0.15.0`	indirect
RubyGems	eventmachine	`1.2.7`	indirect
RubyGems	execjs	`2.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	faraday	`2.14.3`	indirect
RubyGems	faraday-net_http	`3.4.4`	indirect
RubyGems	ffi	`1.15.5`	indirect
RubyGems	forwardable-extended	`2.6.0`	indirect
RubyGems	gemoji	`3.0.1`	indirect
RubyGems	github-pages	`229`	indirect
RubyGems	github-pages-health-check	`1.18.2`	indirect
RubyGems	html-pipeline	`2.14.2`	indirect
RubyGems	http_parser.rb	`0.8.0`	indirect
RubyGems	i18n	`1.14.8`	indirect
RubyGems	iniparser	`1.0.1`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll	`3.9.4`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-avatar	`0.8.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-coffeescript	`1.2.2`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-commonmark	`1.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-commonmark-ghpages	`0.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-default-layout	`0.1.5`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-feed	`0.17.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-gist	`1.5.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-github-metadata	`2.16.1`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-include-cache	`0.2.1`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-mentions	`1.6.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-optional-front-matter	`0.3.2`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-paginate	`1.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-readme-index	`0.3.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-redirect-from	`0.16.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-relative-links	`0.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-remote-theme	`0.4.3`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-sass-converter	`1.5.2`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-seo-tag	`2.8.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-sitemap	`1.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-swiss	`1.0.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-architect	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-cayman	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-dinky	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-hacker	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-leap-day	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-merlot	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-midnight	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-minimal	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-modernist	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-primer	`0.6.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-slate	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-tactile	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-theme-time-machine	`0.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-titles-from-headings	`0.5.3`	indirect
RubyGems	jekyll-watch	`2.2.1`	indirect
RubyGems	jemoji	`0.13.0`	indirect
RubyGems	json	`2.20.0`	indirect
RubyGems	kramdown	`2.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	kramdown-parser-gfm	`1.1.0`	indirect
RubyGems	liquid	`4.0.4`	indirect
RubyGems	listen	`3.9.0`	indirect
RubyGems	logger	`1.7.0`	indirect
RubyGems	logutils	`0.6.1`	indirect
RubyGems	markdown	`1.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	mercenary	`0.3.6`	indirect
RubyGems	minima	`2.5.1`	indirect
RubyGems	minitest	`5.23.0`	indirect
RubyGems	net-http	`0.9.1`	indirect
RubyGems	nokogiri	`1.19.4`	indirect
RubyGems	octokit	`4.25.1`	indirect
RubyGems	pathutil	`0.16.2`	indirect
RubyGems	props	`1.2.0`	indirect
RubyGems	public_suffix	`5.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	racc	`1.8.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rb-fsevent	`0.11.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rb-inotify	`0.10.1`	indirect
RubyGems	rexml	`3.4.2`	indirect
RubyGems	rouge	`3.30.0`	indirect
RubyGems	rubyzip	`2.3.2`	indirect
RubyGems	safe_yaml	`1.0.5`	indirect
RubyGems	sass	`3.7.4`	indirect
RubyGems	sass-listen	`4.0.0`	indirect
RubyGems	sawyer	`0.9.2`	indirect
RubyGems	securerandom	`0.4.1`	indirect
RubyGems	simpleidn	`0.2.1`	indirect
RubyGems	terminal-table	`1.8.0`	indirect
RubyGems	textutils	`1.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	typhoeus	`1.4.0`	indirect
RubyGems	tzinfo	`2.0.6`	indirect
RubyGems	unf	`0.1.4`	indirect
RubyGems	unf_ext	`0.0.8.2`	indirect
RubyGems	unicode-display_width	`1.8.0`	indirect
RubyGems	uri	`1.1.1`	indirect
RubyGems	webrick	`1.8.2`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 103 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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.30.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Related records