Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 21:26 UTC

veyliss / ai-localbase

一个本地优先的AI知识库系统(RAG),用于把本地文档接入辅导搜索与大模型对话流程。目前支持md、txt、pdf(文本)、xlsx、cvs类型。支持mcp服务

Go · TypeScript · CSSMIT★ 379 stars⑂ 55 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined

veyliss/ai-localbase holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (34/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

萧熙Personal account
6 followers22 public repossince May 2022

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?

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 273 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year273
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv1.4.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases6.4
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.8/60Stars — 379 stars
14.4/25Forks — 55 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks55
stars379
watchers2
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
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?

34At Risk · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.996
How it's scored
30/42Issue resolution — 71% of issues closed
15/30PR acceptance — 1/2 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues2
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.714
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.1/25Owner reach — 6 followers of veyliss
18.6/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginveyliss
public_repos22
account_age_days1,580
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.cjs
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, go, ollama, qdrant, rag, react, knowledge-base, mcp
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 52 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes350
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — backend/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.cjs
11/11Static type checking — frontend/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsfrontend/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbackend/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes — 4/233 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes209,923
source_files_sampled233
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

379GitHub stars
2contributors
273commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-20: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 379 stars today.
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 352 ★ / 55 ⇿
352Stars
55Forks
34Releases

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.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-20. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

012525037535254482026-032026-062026-09
Major 1Minor 2Patch 31
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 21:26 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 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTno SAST tool detected
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities52 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.9.1backend/go.mod
Gogithub.com/ledongthuc/pdfv0.0.0-20250511090121-5959a4027728backend/go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1backend/go.mod
Gogithub.com/xuri/excelize/v2v2.10.1backend/go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.51.0backend/go.mod
npmlucide-react^0.468.0frontend/package.json
npmmermaid^11.13.0frontend/package.json
npmreact^18.2.0frontend/package.json
npmreact-dom^18.2.0frontend/package.json
npmreact-markdown^10.1.0frontend/package.json
npmremark-gfm^4.0.1frontend/package.json
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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