Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 05:24 UTC

wagga40 / Zircolite

A standalone SIGMA-based detection tool for EVTX, Auditd and Sysmon for Linux logs

Python · TypeScriptCustom license★ 863 stars⑂ 120 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗

#sigma #python3 #evtx #sigma-rules #detection #auditd #sysmon #pysigma #evtxtract #forensics #forensics-tools #dfir #dfir-automation #dfir-tools #logs

wagga40/Zircolite holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Security (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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.

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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WaggaPersonal account

100 followers16 public repossince Jan 2014

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?

85Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

81Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
16.6/36	Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 518 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	518
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	24

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 60 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~15.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	60
latest_release_tag	v4.6.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	15.7

Community & Adoption

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

79Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

73Good

How it's scored

47.6/60	Stars — 863 stars
17.3/25	Forks — 120 forks
7.7/15	Watchers — 25 watchers

Inputs used

forks	120
stars	863
watchers	25
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

86Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	2
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.7/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	18
top_contributor_share	0.924

Issue & PR responsiveness

82Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
27.7/30	PR acceptance — 97/105 decided PRs merged
11.8/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 10/11 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	97
open_issues	0
closed_issues	62
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	32
prs_decided_30d	34
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	8
first_time_authors_30d	3
first_time_prs_merged_30d	10
first_time_prs_decided_30d	11

Ownership & stewardship

57Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
14.4/25	Owner reach — 100 followers of wagga40
21/25	Track record — 16 public repos, account ~12 yr old

Inputs used

followers	100
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	wagga40
public_repos	16
account_age_days	4,656

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://wagga40.github.io/Zircolite/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 15 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	sigma, python3, evtx, sigma-rules, detection, auditd, sysmon, pysigma, evtxtract, forensics, forensics-tools, dfir, dfir-automation, dfir-tools, logs
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://wagga40.github.io/Zircolite/
docs_site	https://wagga40.github.io/Zircolite/
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?

54Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak

How it's scored

6.8/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
1/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	126
unassessed_packages	23
affected_by_severity	none
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 126 resolved dependencies against OSV. 23 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

48Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.velociraptor.app/llms.txt)
32.5/40	Legible commit history — 61 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	yes
llms_txt_url	https://docs.velociraptor.app/llms.txt
legible_history_share	0.61
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — gui/source/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json, pdm.lock
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	Taskfile.yml
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	gui/source/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

79Good

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (gui/source/tsconfig.json)
52/55	Manageable file sizes — 14/261 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Python
largest_source_bytes	772,759
source_files_sampled	261
oversized_source_files	14

Key facts

863GitHub stars

18contributors

518commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

60releases

1bus factor

0open issues

PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch pypi package 'Zircolite' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 120 ⇿

0Stars

120Forks

57Releases

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.

Major 3Minor 21Patch 32

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10

4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 05:24 UTC

9	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10	CI-Tests	1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 6 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
2	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 27

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
PyPI	orjson	`>=3.9.15`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich	`>=14.2.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	rich-argparse	`>=1.7.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	chardet	`>=5.0,<6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	RestrictedPython	`>=7.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	requests	`>=2.32.4`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	jinja2	`>=2.11.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	evtx	`>=0.6.2`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	lxml	`>=4.9`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pysigma	`>=2.0.1,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pysigma-pipeline-sysmon	`>=2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pysigma-pipeline-windows	`>=2.0.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pysigma-backend-sqlite	`>=2.1.1,<3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyyaml	`>=6.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	psutil	`>=5.9.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	urllib3	`>=2.6.3`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	py7zr	`>=1.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	ijson	`>=3.5.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyahocorasick	`>=2.3.1`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	pyroaring	`>=1.1.0`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	regex	`>=2024.11.6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	duckdb	`<2,>=1.5.6`	pyproject.toml
PyPI	tzdata	`—`	pyproject.toml
npm	@duckdb/duckdb-wasm	`1.32.0`	gui/source/package.json
npm	@fontsource/atkinson-hyperlegible-mono	`5.3.0`	gui/source/package.json
npm	@fontsource/atkinson-hyperlegible-next	`5.3.0`	gui/source/package.json
npm	svelte	`5.57.1`	gui/source/package.json

All dependencies 149

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 27 direct and 122 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@duckdb/duckdb-wasm	`1.32.0`	direct
npm	@fontsource/atkinson-hyperlegible-mono	`5.3.0`	direct
npm	@fontsource/atkinson-hyperlegible-next	`5.3.0`	direct
npm	svelte	`5.57.1`	direct
PyPI	chardet	`—`	direct
PyPI	duckdb	`—`	direct
PyPI	evtx	`—`	direct
PyPI	ijson	`—`	direct
PyPI	jinja2	`—`	direct
PyPI	lxml	`—`	direct
PyPI	orjson	`—`	direct
PyPI	psutil	`—`	direct
PyPI	py7zr	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyahocorasick	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyroaring	`—`	direct
PyPI	pysigma	`—`	direct
PyPI	pysigma-backend-sqlite	`—`	direct
PyPI	pysigma-pipeline-sysmon	`—`	direct
PyPI	pysigma-pipeline-windows	`—`	direct
PyPI	pyyaml	`—`	direct
PyPI	regex	`—`	direct
PyPI	requests	`—`	direct
PyPI	restrictedpython	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich	`—`	direct
PyPI	rich-argparse	`—`	direct
PyPI	tzdata	`—`	direct
PyPI	urllib3	`—`	direct
npm	@duckdb/node-api	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings-darwin-arm64	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings-darwin-x64	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings-linux-arm64	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings-linux-x64	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@duckdb/node-bindings-win32-x64	`1.4.3-r.3`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/gen-mapping	`0.3.13`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/remapping	`2.3.5`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/resolve-uri	`3.1.2`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec	`1.6.0`	indirect
npm	@jridgewell/trace-mapping	`0.3.31`	indirect
npm	@oxc-project/types	`0.152.0`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-android-arm-eabi	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-android-arm64	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm64	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-darwin-x64	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x64	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm64	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	@rolldown/pluginutils	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@sveltejs/acorn-typescript	`1.0.13`	indirect
npm	@sveltejs/load-config	`0.2.3`	indirect
npm	@sveltejs/vite-plugin-svelte	`7.3.1`	indirect
npm	@swc/helpers	`0.5.23`	indirect
npm	@tsconfig/svelte	`5.0.8`	indirect
npm	@types/chai	`5.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/command-line-args	`5.2.3`	indirect
npm	@types/command-line-usage	`5.0.4`	indirect
npm	@types/deep-eql	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`20.19.43`	indirect
npm	@vitest/mocker	`5.0.3`	indirect
npm	@vitest/spy	`5.0.3`	indirect
npm	acorn	`8.18.0`	indirect
npm	ansi-styles	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	apache-arrow	`17.0.0`	indirect
npm	aria-query	`5.3.1`	indirect
npm	array-back	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	array-back	`6.2.3`	indirect
npm	assertion-error	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	axobject-query	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	chai	`6.3.0`	indirect
npm	chalk	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	chalk-template	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	chokidar	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	clsx	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	color-convert	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	color-name	`1.1.4`	indirect
npm	command-line-args	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	command-line-usage	`7.0.4`	indirect
npm	deepmerge	`4.3.1`	indirect
npm	detect-libc	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	devalue	`5.9.4`	indirect
npm	es-module-lexer	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	esm-env	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	esrap	`2.4.0`	indirect
npm	estree-walker	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	expect-type	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	find-replace	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	flatbuffers	`24.12.23`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	fsevents	`2.3.3`	indirect
npm	has-flag	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-reference	`3.0.3`	indirect
npm	json-bignum	`0.0.3`	indirect
npm	lightningcss	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-android-arm64	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-arm64	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-darwin-x64	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-freebsd-x64	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-arm64-musl	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-gnu	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-linux-x64-musl	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	lightningcss-win32-x64-msvc	`1.33.0`	indirect
npm	locate-character	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	lodash.camelcase	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`0.30.21`	indirect
npm	magic-string	`1.4.2`	indirect
npm	mri	`1.2.0`	indirect
npm	nanoid	`3.3.19`	indirect
npm	obug	`2.2.1`	indirect
npm	pako	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	picocolors	`1.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.7`	indirect
npm	playwright	`1.62.0`	indirect
npm	playwright-core	`1.62.0`	indirect
npm	postcss	`8.5.28`	indirect
npm	readdirp	`4.1.2`	indirect
npm	rolldown	`1.2.12`	indirect
npm	sade	`1.8.1`	indirect
npm	source-map-js	`1.2.2`	indirect
npm	std-env	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	supports-color	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	svelte-check	`4.7.6`	indirect
npm	table-layout	`4.1.1`	indirect
npm	tinybench	`6.2.0`	indirect
npm	tinyexec	`1.3.1`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	tslib	`2.8.1`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.9.3`	indirect
npm	typical	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	typical	`7.3.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`6.21.0`	indirect
npm	vite	`8.3.2`	indirect
npm	vitefu	`1.1.3`	indirect
npm	vitest	`5.0.3`	indirect
npm	why-is-node-running	`3.2.1`	indirect
npm	wordwrapjs	`5.1.1`	indirect
npm	zimmerframe	`1.1.5`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 126 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 23 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records