Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 00:47 UTC

visresearch / WordAgent

An AI agent-powered writing assistance system (Codex style) that enables AI-assisted content creation via WPS and Microsoft Word add-ins. 基于AI智能体的写作辅助系统,通过WPS、Microsoft Word加载项,实现AI辅助的文字创作

Python · Vue · JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 150 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverCommand-line toolNetwork serviceWeb interfaceDesktop applicationhow this is determined

visresearch/WordAgent holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (41/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

31 followers13 public repossince May 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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume214 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year214
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases28 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count28
latest_release_tagv0.6.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases12.6

Community & Adoption

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

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.3/60Stars150 stars
8.7/25Forks12 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars150
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges7
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 90% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.902
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance1/1 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
10.8/25Owner reach31 followers of visresearch
15/25Track record13 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers31
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginvisresearch
public_repos13
account_age_days1,213

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.cjs, .eslintrc.json, backend/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black]), frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json ("prettier")
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 1 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
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://visresearch.github.io/WordAgent/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent, aigc, llm, word-generator, ai-assistant, office, word, multi-agent, writing, wps
has_wikino
homepagehttps://visresearch.github.io/WordAgent/
docs_sitehttps://visresearch.github.io/WordAgent/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

41Weak · 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-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 2 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
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.4/40Legible commit history12 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.12
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.cjs, .eslintrc.json, backend/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black]), frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json ("prettier")
11/11Static type checkingfrontend/wps_word_plugin/jsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsfrontend/wps_word_plugin/jsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (frontend/wps_word_plugin/jsconfig.json)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes2/189 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes138,532
source_files_sampled189
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

150GitHub stars
2contributors
214commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
28releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'WordAgent' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
22Releases

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.

0246810121212026-042026-062026-09
Major 0Minor 4Patch 18
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10
4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 00:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 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 1/17 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 40
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIfastapi>=0.104.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.24.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic>=2.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings>=2.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIopenai>=1.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlalchemy>=2.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIaiosqlite>=0.19.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain>=1.4.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain-openai>=0.0.5backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain-anthropic>=0.1.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain-core>=0.1.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlanggraph-checkpoint-sqlitebackend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain-experimental>=0.0.10backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.28.1backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyside6>=6.10.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyside6-fluent-widgets>=1.11.1backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dotenv>=1.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangsmith>=0.1.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=41.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIlangchain-mcp-adapters>=0.2.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.24.0,<2.0.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-multipart>=0.0.22backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpymupdf>=1.27.2.2backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-docx>=1.2.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIrapidocr-onnxruntimebackend/pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlib>=3.10.9backend/pyproject.toml
PyPItqdm>=4.67.3backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIseaborn>=0.13.2backend/pyproject.toml
npmcore-js^3.49.0frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json
npmmarkdown-it^14.3.0frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json
npmregenerator-runtime^0.14.1frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json
npmvue^3.5.40frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json
npmvue-router^4.6.4frontend/microsoft_word_plugin/package.json
npm@jamescoyle/vue-icon^0.1.2frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npm@mdi/js^7.4.47frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npmaxios^1.18.1frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npmcore-js^3.49.0frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npmmarkdown-it^14.3.0frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npmvue^3.5.40frontend/wps_word_plugin/package.json
npmvue-router^4.6.4frontend/wps_word_plugin/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.