Public recordGood
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 01:15 UTC
victoriacheng15 / personal-reading-analytics
Zero-infrastructure reading analytics pipeline. Automated data pipeline via GitHub Actions with MongoDB event sourcing for observability and interactive visualizations.
victoriacheng15/personal-reading-analytics holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
69
overall / 100Software 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.
69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Victoria ChengPersonal account
206 followers27 public repossince Jan 2018
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/victoriacheng15/personal-reading-analytics | v1.4.3 | - | 18 | 520 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
79
Development activity
95Exceptional
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 1 days ago |
| 31.2/36 | Commit cadence — 45/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 310 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 310 |
| human_commit_share | 0.19 |
| days_since_last_push | 1 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 45 |
Release discipline
56Moderate
How it's scored
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 18 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 7.2/36 | Release recency — latest release 520 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~8.3 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 18 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.4.3 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 520 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 8.3 |
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?
24
Popularity & adoption
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 2 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 1 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 1 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 1 |
| stars | 2 |
| watchers | 1 |
| 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 (MIT) |
| 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 | 0 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
59
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
13Critical
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 0/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| 1.4/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 1 contributors |
| 3/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 1 |
| top_contributor_share | 1 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
97Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 29.2/30 | PR acceptance — 391/402 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 391 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 11 |
| 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): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
62Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 16.7/25 | Owner reach — 206 followers of victoriacheng15 |
| 22.5/25 | Track record — 27 public repos, account ~8 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 206 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | victoriacheng15 |
| public_repos | 27 |
| account_age_days | 3,182 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
79Good
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go |
| 14/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 520 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 18 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | github.com/victoriacheng15/personal-reading-analytics |
| ecosystems | go |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 520 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
76
Engineering practices
66Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 18/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://victoriacheng15.github.io/personal-reading-analytics/ |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | docker, github-actions-ci, google-sheets-api, python, go |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://victoriacheng15.github.io/personal-reading-analytics/ |
| docs_site | https://victoriacheng15.github.io/personal-reading-analytics/ |
| 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?
59
Security posture
49Weak
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 — 29 out of 30 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — no data |
| 0.8/2.5 | Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| 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 — 30 commit(s) and 0 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 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 14 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 4 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 4.9 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Code-Review, 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 | 22 |
| affected_packages | 6 |
| assessed_packages | 80 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | high 3, moderate 2, unknown 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 80 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.
85
Agent context & guidance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — AGENTS.md |
| 15/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | yes |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | AGENTS.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 4,849 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — Go (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 — 52 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 | go.sum |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | go.mod |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0.52 |
Code legibility for models
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 53.2/55 | Manageable file sizes — 1/31 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 91,937 |
| source_files_sampled | 31 |
| oversized_source_files | 1 |
Key facts
2GitHub stars
1contributors
310commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate
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).
| 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 | 29 out of 30 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 |
| n/a | Code-Review | Found no human activity in the last 30 changesets |
| 3 | Contributors | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| 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 | 30 commit(s) and 0 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 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | 14 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 4
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/joho/godotenv | v1.5.1 | go.mod |
| Go | google.golang.org/api | v0.295.0 | go.mod |
| Go | google.golang.org/genai | v1.70.0 | go.mod |
| Go | gopkg.in/yaml.v3 | v3.0.1 | go.mod |
All dependencies 80
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 76 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/joho/godotenv | v1.5.1 | direct |
| Go | google.golang.org/api | v0.295.0 | direct |
| Go | google.golang.org/genai | v1.70.0 | direct |
| Go | gopkg.in/yaml.v3 | v3.0.1 | direct |
| Go | cloud.google.com/go | v0.123.0 | indirect |
| Go | cloud.google.com/go/auth | v0.23.2 | indirect |
| Go | cloud.google.com/go/auth/oauth2adapt | v0.2.8 | indirect |
| Go | cloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata | v0.9.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2 | v2.3.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/felixge/httpsnoop | v1.0.4 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-logr/logr | v1.4.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-logr/stdr | v1.2.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/google/go-cmp | v0.7.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/google/s2a-go | v0.1.9 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/google/uuid | v1.6.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/googleapis/enterprise-certificate-proxy | v0.3.20 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2 | v2.24.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/gorilla/websocket | v1.5.3 | indirect |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdk | v1.2.1 | indirect |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp | v0.67.0 | indirect |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel | v1.44.0 | indirect |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric | v1.44.0 | indirect |
| Go | go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace | v1.44.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/crypto | v0.55.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/net | v0.58.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/oauth2 | v0.36.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sys | v0.47.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/text | v0.41.0 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc | v0.0.0-20260819154853-08b0e4226688 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/grpc | v1.83.2 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/protobuf | v1.36.12 | indirect |
| PyPI | anyio | 4.14.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | beautifulsoup4 | 4.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | cachetools | 7.0.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | certifi | 2026.2.25 | indirect |
| PyPI | charset-normalizer | 3.4.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | click | 8.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | coverage | 7.14.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | dnspython | 2.8.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-api-core | 2.33.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-api-python-client | 2.192.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-auth | 2.49.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-auth-httplib2 | 0.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | google-auth-oauthlib | 1.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | googleapis-common-protos | 1.73.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | gspread | 6.2.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | h11 | 0.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | h2 | 4.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | hpack | 4.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpcore | 1.0.9 | indirect |
| PyPI | httplib2 | 0.32.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | httpx | 0.28.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | hyperframe | 6.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | idna | 3.18 | indirect |
| PyPI | iniconfig | 2.3.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | oauthlib | 3.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | packaging | 26.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pluggy | 1.6.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | proto-plus | 1.27.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | protobuf | 6.33.5 | indirect |
| PyPI | pur | 7.4.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyasn1 | 0.6.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyasn1-modules | 0.4.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pygments | 2.20.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pymongo | 4.16.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | pyparsing | 3.3.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest | 9.0.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | pytest-cov | 7.1.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dateutil | 2.9.0.post0 | indirect |
| PyPI | python-dotenv | 1.2.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests | 2.34.2 | indirect |
| PyPI | requests-oauthlib | 2.0.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | rsa | 4.9.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | ruff | 0.15.20 | indirect |
| PyPI | sniffio | 1.3.1 | indirect |
| PyPI | soupsieve | 2.8.3 | indirect |
| PyPI | strenum | 0.4.15 | indirect |
| PyPI | typing-extensions | 4.15.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | uritemplate | 4.2.0 | indirect |
| PyPI | urllib3 | 2.7.0 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 6
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 80 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.
| Package | Version | Relation | Severity | Advisories | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| click | 8.3.1 | indirect | high | 1 | 8.3.3 |
| pyasn1 | 0.6.2 | indirect | high | 8 | 0.6.4 |
| soupsieve | 2.8.3 | indirect | high | 6 | 2.9.0 |
| h2 | 4.3.0 | indirect | moderate | 2 | 4.4.1 |
| pytest | 9.0.2 | indirect | moderate | 2 | 9.0.3 |
| golang.org/x/crypto | v0.55.0 | indirect | unknown | 3 | 0.56.0 |
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 — Go.