Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 17:16 UTC

viarotel-org / escrcpy

📱 Display and control your Android device graphically with scrcpy.

JavaScript · Vue · TypeScriptApache-2.0★ 12,100 stars⑂ 849 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗

viarotel-org/escrcpy holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Security (32/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

viarotel-orgOrganization
115 followers16 public repossince Apr 2023

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 8 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 412 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year412
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year25
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~21.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases21.3

Community & Adoption

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

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 12,100 stars
24.4/25Forks — 849 forks
9.8/15Watchers — 58 watchers
Inputs used
forks849
stars12,100
watchers58
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 15 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.984
How it's scored
39.2/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
28/30PR acceptance — 215/230 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs215
open_issues26
closed_issues366
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.934
closed_unmerged_prs15
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
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.8/25Owner reach — 115 followers of viarotel-org
16/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers115
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginviarotel-org
public_repos16
account_age_days1,277

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — eslint.config.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://viarotel.eu.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsscrcpy, linux, macos, recording, windows, genymobile, gnirehtet, android, scrcpy-gui, screenshots, hacktoberfest, scrcpy-engine, gui, screensharing, mirroring, hacktoberfest2026, mapping, hacktoberfest2027
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://viarotel.eu.org/
docs_sitehttps://viarotel.eu.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

32At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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 — 6 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate2.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: i18next-fs-backend 2.6.1 (critical 9.1), nanoid 5.0.7 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
28.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 678 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories26
affected_packages7
assessed_packages83
unassessed_packages16
affected_by_severitycritical 3, high 4
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 83 resolved dependencies against OSV. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

65Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,637
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — eslint.config.js
11/11Static type checking — desktop/jsconfig.json, packages/adbx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-ipcx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-setup/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset-shades/tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsdesktop/jsconfig.json, packages/adbx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-ipcx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-setup/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset-shades/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (desktop/jsconfig.json, packages/adbx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-ipcx/tsconfig.json, packages/electron-setup/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/unocss-preset-shades/tsconfig.json)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/234 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes25,520
source_files_sampled234
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

12,100GitHub stars
15contributors
412commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
26open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch npm package '@escrcpy/electron-ipcx' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 849 ⇿
0Stars
849Forks
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.

02004006008001,000844442023-092025-042026-10
Major 0Minor 23Patch 75

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.8 / 10
2.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-18 17:16 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 2/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained6 commit(s) and 23 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 13
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@lydell/node-pty1.2.0-beta.3desktop/package.json
npmi18next-fs-backend2.6.1desktop/package.json
npmsharp*desktop/package.json
npm@devicefarmer/adbkit*packages/adbx/package.json
npm@escrcpy/sharedworkspace:*packages/adbx/package.json
npmes-toolkit^1.43.0packages/electron-ipcx/package.json
npmnanoid^5.0.7packages/electron-ipcx/package.json
npm@escrcpy/electron-ipcxworkspace:*packages/electron-setup/package.json
npmelectron-store^10.0.0packages/electron-setup/package.json
npmes-toolkit^1.43.0packages/electron-setup/package.json
npmnanoid^5.0.7packages/electron-setup/package.json
npmunctx^2.4.0packages/electron-setup/package.json
npmcolor^5.0.3packages/unocss-preset-shades/package.json
All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@devicefarmer/adbkit*direct
npm@lydell/node-pty1.2.0-beta.3direct
npmcolor^5.0.3direct
npmelectron-store11.0.2direct
npmelectron-store^10.0.0direct
npmes-toolkit^1.43.0direct
npmi18next-fs-backend2.6.1direct
npmnanoid5.0.7direct
npmnanoid^5.0.7direct
npmsharp*direct
npmunctx^2.4.0direct
npm@antfu/eslint-config9.3.0indirect
npm@electron-toolkit/preload3.0.1indirect
npm@electron-toolkit/utils3.0.0indirect
npm@electron/remote2.1.2indirect
npm@element-plus/icons-vue2.3.2indirect
npm@floating-ui/dom1.7.6indirect
npm@iconify/json2.2.427indirect
npm@magda/tree-kill1.2.3indirect
npm@types/node20.19.30indirect
npm@unocss/preset-icons66.7.4indirect
npm@unocss/preset-typography66.7.4indirect
npm@unocss/reset66.7.4indirect
npm@unocss/transformer-directives66.7.4indirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-vue*indirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-vue-jsx*indirect
npm@vueuse/components14.4.0indirect
npm@vueuse/core14.4.0indirect
npm@vueuse/rxjs14.4.0indirect
npm@xterm/addon-fit0.11.0indirect
npm@xterm/xterm6.0.0indirect
npmauto-launch5.0.6indirect
npmbig.js7.0.1indirect
npmbonjour-service1.3.0indirect
npmbuild-md0.4.5indirect
npmcompare-versions6.1.1indirect
npmcreate-desktop-shortcuts1.12.0indirect
npmcroner9.1.0indirect
npmd3-random3.0.1indirect
npmdayjs1.11.11indirect
npmdexie4.2.1indirect
npmelectron*indirect
npmelectron42.1.0indirect
npmelectron-builder26.15.3indirect
npmelectron-context-menu4.0.4indirect
npmelectron-find-in-page1.0.8indirect
npmelectron-log5.4.4indirect
npmelectron-updater6.8.9indirect
npmelement-plus2.14.4indirect
npmenum-plus3.1.6indirect
npmesbuild0.27.0indirect
npmeslint10.8.1indirect
npmeslint-plugin-format2.0.1indirect
npmfit-dimensions1.0.0indirect
npmfix-path5.0.0indirect
npmfs-extra11.2.0indirect
npmga-gtag1.2.0indirect
npmhusky9.0.11indirect
npmi18next25.8.0indirect
npmi18next-json-sync3.1.2indirect
npmip-regex5.0.0indirect
npmlodash-es4.17.21indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmos-locale8.0.0indirect
npmp-limit7.2.0indirect
npmpinia4.0.2indirect
npmpinia-plugin-persistedstate4.7.1indirect
npmpinyin-pro3.26.0indirect
npmpostcss8.4.38indirect
npmpostcss-nested6.0.1indirect
npmpostcss-scss4.0.9indirect
npmpretty-bytes7.1.0indirect
npmpublint0.3.16indirect
npmqrcode1.5.4indirect
npmrimraf6.0.1indirect
npmrxjs7.8.2indirect
npmshell-quote1.8.3indirect
npmsimple-git3.27.0indirect
npmswapy1.0.5indirect
npmtsdown*indirect
npmturbo2.10.12indirect
npmtypescript*indirect
npmunocss66.7.4indirect
npmunocss-preset-animations1.3.0indirect
npmunplugin-auto-import0.18.6indirect
npmunplugin-vue-components0.27.5indirect
npmvalidator13.15.26indirect
npmvite*indirect
npmvite-plugin-electron1.1.1indirect
npmvite-plugin-electron-renderer1.0.0indirect
npmvitepress1.6.4indirect
npmvitepress-i18n1.3.3indirect
npmvitepress-sidebar1.31.1indirect
npmvitest^2.1.5indirect
npmvue*indirect
npmvue-draggable-resizable3.0.0indirect
npmvue-router*indirect
npmvue-screen2.4.2indirect
npmwhich7.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 83 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct. 16 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
i18next-fs-backend2.6.1directcritical22.6.6
shell-quote1.8.3indirectcritical21.9.0
simple-git3.27.0indirectcritical64.0.1
nanoid5.0.7directhigh45.1.16
electron42.1.0indirecthigh544.0.0-beta.5
lodash-es4.17.21indirecthigh34.18.0
postcss8.4.38indirecthigh48.5.23

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.

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.