# whyour/qinglong — health index 65/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository whyour/qinglong by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/whyour/qinglong
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/whyour/qinglong
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/whyour/qinglong/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/w/whyour/qinglong.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-23
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 81/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 74/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 63/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 60/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 44/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 60/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | 支持 Python3、JavaScript、Shell、Typescript 的定时任务管理平台（Timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, Typescript） |
| Homepage | https://qinglong.online |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 19,717 |
| Forks | 3,242 |
| Created | 2021-03-13 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Latest release | v2.21.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 125 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | crontab, python, javascript, task-manager, typescript, shell, docker |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @whyour/qinglong | 2.21.0-15 | 3,734 |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 81/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 17.3 / 36 | 25/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 125 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 21 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 80/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 95 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~47.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 4 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 74/100 (Good)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 97/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 19,717 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 3,242 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 11.8 / 15 | 136 watchers |

### Community health — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 60/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 47.6 / 80 | 3,734 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 63/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 28/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 5.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 75% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 67 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 45.3 / 46.8 | 97% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 21.1 / 38.2 | 131/237 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 1.5 / 15 | Found 3/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 71/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 22.4 / 25 | 1,325 followers of whyour |
| Track record | partial | 24.4 / 25 | 49 public repos, account ~9 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 5 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 171 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 60/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 34/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 4 / 20 | 1 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://qinglong.online |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 7 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 44/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 49/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 0.5 / 2.5 | 1 out of 4 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | Found 3/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 21 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | partial | 1 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 144 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 26/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1811 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 4.2 / 35 | 12 affected: @grpc/grpc-js 1.14.0 (high 7.5), js-yaml 3.14.1 (high 7.5), js-yaml 4.1.0 (high 7.5), +9 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 15.2 / 40 | 9 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 464 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 60/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 67/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | partial | 21.9 / 40 | 41 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 31/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | back/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 22 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 1/169 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | back/protos/api.proto, back/protos/cron.proto, back/protos/health.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, sample |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- deps.dev does not index npm:@whyour/qinglong@2.21.0-15; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
- Advisory severity resolved for 120 of 157 advisories (lookup cap); the remainder are reported as unknown severity

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt