Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 22:50 UTC

trevorwang / retrofit.dart

retrofit.dart is an dio client generator using source_gen and inspired by Chopper and Retrofit.

DartMIT★ 1,184 stars⑂ 292 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryMobile applicationhow this is determined

#retrofit #dart #dio #http #source-gen #build-runner #chopper

trevorwang/retrofit.dart holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (83/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (64/100). It was last updated 14 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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Trevor WangPersonal account

154 followers182 public repossince Sep 2009Mingsin

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?

81Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

69Good

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 14 days ago
13.2/36	Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18	Commit volume — 72 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	72
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	14
active_weeks_last_year	19

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 14 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~22.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	100
latest_release_tag	v10.2.11
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	14
mean_days_between_releases	22.9

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?

70Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

75Good

How it's scored

49.8/60	Stars — 1,184 stars
20.5/25	Forks — 292 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	292
stars	1,184
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

65Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, github.com, opencollective.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?

64Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 61% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 96 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	96
top_contributor_share	0.606

Issue & PR responsiveness

93Exceptional

How it's scored

41.3/42	Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
25.4/30	PR acceptance — 321/379 decided PRs merged
13/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 21/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	321
open_issues	9
closed_issues	530
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	3
prs_decided_30d	3
issue_closed_ratio	0.983
closed_unmerged_prs	58
first_time_authors_30d	1
first_time_prs_merged_30d	2
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

63Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.7/25	Owner reach — 154 followers of trevorwang
25/25	Track record — 182 public repos, account ~17 yr old

Inputs used

followers	154
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	trevorwang
public_repos	182
account_age_days	6,226

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

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

83Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
18/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://mings.in/retrofit.dart/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 7 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	retrofit, dart, dio, http, source-gen, build-runner, chopper
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://mings.in/retrofit.dart/
docs_site	http://mings.in/retrofit.dart/
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?

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 21/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	16
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	155
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 4, moderate 1
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 155 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 87 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.906
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

75Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — flutter_example/android/app/build.gradle, flutter_example/android/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Dart (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 35 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.35
toolchain_manifests	flutter_example/android/app/build.gradle, flutter_example/android/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.03

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Dart (statically typed)
53.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/73 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Dart
largest_source_bytes	145,578
source_files_sampled	73
oversized_source_files	2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — example_protobuf/proto/params.proto, example_protobuf/proto/result.proto
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example

Inputs used

example_dirs	example
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	example_protobuf/proto/params.proto, example_protobuf/proto/result.proto
interfaces_expected_of	—

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

Key facts

1,184GitHub stars

96contributors

72commits, last 12 months

14days since last push

100releases

1bus factor

9open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package 'retrofit.dart' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 292 ⇿

0Stars

292Forks

100Releases

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 14Minor 15Patch 53

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10

6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 22:50 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
9	CI-Tests	27 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 21/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10	Contributors	project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
9	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	16 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 155

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 155 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@babel/code-frame	`7.27.1`	indirect
npm	@babel/helper-validator-identifier	`7.27.1`	indirect
npm	@babel/runtime	`7.28.3`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/cli	`20.1.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/config-conventional	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/config-validator	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/ensure	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/execute-rule	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/format	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/is-ignored	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/lint	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/load	`20.1.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/message	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/parse	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/read	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/resolve-extends	`20.1.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/rules	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/to-lines	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/top-level	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@commitlint/types	`20.0.0`	indirect
npm	@types/conventional-commits-parser	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`24.9.1`	indirect
npm	ajv	`8.17.1`	indirect
npm	all-contributors-cli	`6.26.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-escapes	`4.3.2`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	argparse	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	array-ify	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	async	`3.2.6`	indirect
npm	callsites	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	camelcase	`5.3.1`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chalk	`5.6.2`	indirect
npm	chardet	`0.7.0`	indirect
npm	cli-cursor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	cli-width	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	cliui	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	cliui	`8.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	compare-func	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	conventional-changelog-angular	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits	`7.0.2`	indirect
npm	conventional-commits-parser	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	cosmiconfig	`9.0.0`	indirect
npm	cosmiconfig-typescript-loader	`6.2.0`	indirect
npm	dargs	`8.1.0`	indirect
npm	decamelize	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	didyoumean	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	dot-prop	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	emoji-regex	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	env-paths	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	error-ex	`1.3.2`	indirect
npm	escalade	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`1.0.5`	indirect
npm	external-editor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	fast-deep-equal	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	fast-uri	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	figures	`3.2.0`	indirect
npm	find-up	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	find-up	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	get-caller-file	`2.0.5`	indirect
npm	git-raw-commits	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	global-directory	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	husky	`9.1.7`	indirect
npm	iconv-lite	`0.4.24`	indirect
npm	import-fresh	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	import-meta-resolve	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	ini	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	inquirer	`7.3.3`	indirect
npm	is-arrayish	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	is-fullwidth-code-point	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-obj	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-text-path	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	jiti	`2.6.1`	indirect
npm	js-tokens	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	json-fixer	`1.6.15`	indirect
npm	json-parse-even-better-errors	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	json-schema-traverse	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	jsonparse	`1.3.1`	indirect
npm	JSONStream	`1.3.5`	indirect
npm	lines-and-columns	`1.2.4`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	lodash	`4.17.23`	indirect
npm	lodash.camelcase	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.isplainobject	`4.0.6`	indirect
npm	lodash.kebabcase	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	lodash.merge	`4.6.2`	indirect
npm	lodash.mergewith	`4.6.2`	indirect
npm	lodash.snakecase	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	lodash.startcase	`4.4.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.uniq	`4.5.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.upperfirst	`4.3.1`	indirect
npm	meow	`12.1.1`	indirect
npm	mimic-fn	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	minimist	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	mute-stream	`0.0.8`	indirect
npm	node-fetch	`2.7.0`	indirect
npm	onetime	`5.1.2`	indirect
npm	os-tmpdir	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`2.3.0`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	p-try	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	parent-module	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	parse-json	`5.2.0`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	pegjs	`0.10.0`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	pify	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	prettier	`2.8.8`	indirect
npm	require-directory	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	require-from-string	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	require-main-filename	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	resolve-from	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	resolve-from	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	restore-cursor	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	run-async	`2.4.1`	indirect
npm	rxjs	`6.6.7`	indirect
npm	safer-buffer	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.3`	indirect
npm	set-blocking	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	signal-exit	`3.0.7`	indirect
npm	split2	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	string-width	`4.2.3`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	text-extensions	`2.4.0`	indirect
npm	through	`2.3.8`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	tmp	`0.0.33`	indirect
npm	tr46	`0.0.3`	indirect
npm	tslib	`1.14.1`	indirect
npm	type-fest	`0.21.3`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`7.16.0`	indirect
npm	unicorn-magic	`0.1.0`	indirect
npm	webidl-conversions	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	whatwg-url	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	which-module	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`6.2.0`	indirect
npm	wrap-ansi	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	y18n	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	y18n	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	yargs	`15.4.1`	indirect
npm	yargs	`17.7.2`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`18.1.3`	indirect
npm	yargs-parser	`21.1.1`	indirect
npm	yocto-queue	`1.2.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 155 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
fast-uri	`3.1.0`	indirect	high	7	`4.1.3`
js-yaml	`4.1.1`	indirect	high	4	`4.3.2`
lodash	`4.17.23`	indirect	high	2	`4.18.0`
tmp	`0.0.33`	indirect	high	2	`0.2.6`
ajv	`8.17.1`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.18.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records