Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 14:24 UTC

wsshow / feikong-teams

一个基于多智能体协作的 AI 助手,支持命令行和Web界面,提供团队模式、自定义会议模式和多智能体讨论模式(圆桌会议模式)三种工作方式,通过多个专业智能体协同工作来完成复杂的编程和系统任务。

Go · TypeScriptMIT★ 136 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindChat botNetwork serviceWeb interfacehow this is determined

wsshow/feikong-teams holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on Security (33/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

wsshowPersonal account
13 followers52 public repossince Apr 2019

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?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,162 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,162
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~1.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.28.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases1.5

Community & Adoption

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

48Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.6/60Stars136 stars
12.4/25Forks32 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars136
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

36Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance0/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
8.2/25Owner reach13 followers of wsshow
24.6/25Track record52 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginwsshow
public_repos52
account_age_days2,642
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://fkteams.wsshow.top
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics12 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicseino, multiagent, auto, agents, ai, chatbot, chatgpt, cli, fkteams, cowork, mcp, skills
has_wikino
homepagehttps://fkteams.wsshow.top
docs_sitehttps://fkteams.wsshow.top
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 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-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
1.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities51 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests. 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.

70Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,079
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingweb/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsweb/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes3/638 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes95,405
source_files_sampled638
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofchat-bot, network-service

Key facts

136GitHub stars
1contributors
1,162commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 14:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
3Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities51 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 68
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gocharm.land/bubbles/v2v2.0.0go.mod
Gocharm.land/bubbletea/v2v2.0.1go.mod
Gocharm.land/glamour/v2v2.0.0go.mod
Gocharm.land/lipgloss/v2v2.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/JohannesKaufmann/html-to-markdown/v2v2.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/Masterminds/semver/v3v3.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/PuerkitoBio/goqueryv1.10.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2v2.20.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/atotto/clipboardv0.1.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/bmatcuk/doublestar/v4v4.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/bwmarrin/discordgov0.29.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.1-0.20250404203927-76690c660834go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/einov0.9.12go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/arkv0.1.68go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/claudev0.1.19go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/deepseekv0.1.6go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/geminiv0.1.32go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/ollamav0.1.9go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/openaiv0.1.13go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/openrouterv0.1.10go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/model/qwenv0.1.9go.mod
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/eino-ext/components/tool/mcpv0.0.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/corpix/uarandv0.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/eino-contrib/jsonschemav1.0.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.11.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-git/v5v5.16.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-yamlv1.18.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gomarkdown/markdownv0.0.0-20250810172220-2e2c11897d1ago.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/mark3labs/mcp-gov0.43.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.20go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.20go.mod
Gogithub.com/natefinch/lumberjackv2.0.0+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2v2.2.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/pkg/sftpv1.13.10go.mod
Gogithub.com/pterm/ptermv0.12.82go.mod
Gogithub.com/robfig/cron/v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/skip2/go-qrcodev0.0.0-20200617195104-da1b6568686ego.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tencent-connect/botgov0.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli/v3v3.7.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/wk8/go-ordered-map/v2v2.1.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/wsshow/docreaderv1.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/wsshow/selfupdatev1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/xuri/excelize/v2v2.10.0go.mod
Gogo.uber.org/zapv1.27.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.46.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.30.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.19.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.39.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genaiv1.50.0go.mod
npm@reduxjs/toolkit^2.5.1web/package.json
npm@vitejs/plugin-react^4.3.4web/package.json
npmanimejs^3.2.2web/package.json
npmclass-variance-authority^0.7.1web/package.json
npmclsx^2.1.1web/package.json
npmdompurify^3.4.12web/package.json
npmhighlight.js^11.11.1web/package.json
npmkatex^0.17.0web/package.json
npmlucide-react^0.468.0web/package.json
npmmarked^15.0.6web/package.json
npmmarked-katex-extension^5.1.10web/package.json
npmreact^19.0.0web/package.json
npmreact-dom^19.0.0web/package.json
npmreact-redux^9.2.0web/package.json
npmtailwind-merge^2.6.0web/package.json
npmtailwindcss-animate^1.0.7web/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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.