Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 12:23 UTC

vallierdev / codex-switcher

Codex CLI / Codex App 多账号桌面工具:账号管理、配额观察、本地代理、无损自动切号、中转站、Coding Plan 接入;限额时自动换号/切中转/接 GLM 或 MiMo 并重发。 Desktop switcher for Codex CLI/App accounts, relay endpoints, GLM/MiMo Coding Plan, and lossless proxy retries.

Rust · TypeScriptMIT★ 58 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindDesktop applicationWeb interfacehow this is determined

vallierdev/codex-switcher holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on Security (35/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VallierDevPersonal account
1 follower5 public repossince Jan 2017

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iocodex-switcherpoints to another repo — not scored0.3.01933 days agocliproviderscodexcommand-line-utilities

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 18 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume156 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year156
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year19
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases31 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 18 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv0.7.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release18
mean_days_between_releases5

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.5/60Stars58 stars
8.7/25Forks12 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars58
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

35Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 50% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.5
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution25% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance1/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues3
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of VallierDev
17.7/25Track record5 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginVallierDev
public_repos5
account_age_days3,480
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsaccount-switcher, codex, rust, tauri, typescript, windsurf
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

73Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, Agent.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, Agent.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,401
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingtsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configstsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeRust (statically typed)
50.6/55Manageable file sizes5/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes277,030
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files5
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

58GitHub stars
2contributors
156commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
3open issues
crates.io, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • crates package 'codex-switcher' points at a different repository (https://github.com/pynickle/codex-switcher); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 12:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not 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
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities48 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 38
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@tauri-apps/api^2.10.1package.json
npm@tauri-apps/plugin-dialog^2package.json
npm@tauri-apps/plugin-fs^2package.json
npm@tauri-apps/plugin-opener^2package.json
npmlucide-react^0.562.0package.json
npmreact^19.1.0package.json
npmreact-dom^19.1.0package.json
npmreact-markdown^10.1.0package.json
npmrecharts^3.8.0package.json
crates.iotauri2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotauri-plugin-opener2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotauri-plugin-dialog2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotauri-plugin-fs2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotauri-plugin-deep-link2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioserde_json1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iochrono0.4src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iodirs5src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iouuid1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioreqwest0.12src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioregex1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-util0.1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iohttp-body-util0.1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iobytes1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iofutures-util0.3src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iotokio-tungstenite0.26src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iozip2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iourl2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iobase640.22.1src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iorand0.9.2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iosha20.10.9src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iourlencoding2.1.3src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioimage0.25src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iolibc0.2src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.iozstd0.13src-tauri/Cargo.toml
crates.ioflate21src-tauri/Cargo.toml
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticscrates.io.