Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-01 05:07 UTC
xberg-io / liter-llm
Universal LLM API client — 163 providers, 14 native language bindings, powered by a Rust core
xberg-io/liter-llm holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
80
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.
80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Xberg.io Organization
139 followers17 public repossince Oct 2025
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Packagist | xberg-io/liter-llm | v1.12.0 | 0 | 108 | 0 days ago | api-clientopenaillmanthropic |
| PyPI | liter-llm | 1.12.0 | 2,608 | 34 | 0 days ago | anthropicapi-clientllmopenai |
| npm | @xberg-io/opencode-liter-llm | 1.12.0 | 339 | 4 | 0 days ago | llmopenaiproxyembeddingsmcp |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
82
Development activity
77Good
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 0 days ago |
| 13.2/36 | Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 1,350 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 1,350 |
| human_commit_share | 0.72 |
| days_since_last_push | 0 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 19 |
Release discipline
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 100 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 0 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~1.3 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 100 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.12.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 0 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 1.3 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
63
Popularity & adoption
49Weak
How it's scored
| 38.6/60 | Stars — 240 stars |
| 10.5/25 | Forks — 19 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 2 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 19 |
| stars | 240 |
| watchers | 2 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
92Excellent
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 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 | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
How it's scored
| 46.3/80 | Monthly downloads — 2,947 downloads/month across npm, packagist, pypi |
| 0/20 | Registry dependents — 0 packages depend on it |
Inputs used
| packages | xberg-io/liter-llm, liter-llm, @xberg-io/opencode-liter-llm |
| dependents | 0 |
| ecosystems | npm, packagist, pypi |
| total_downloads | 0 |
| monthly_downloads | 2,947 |
| unverified_packages_excluded | — |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
61
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
26At Risk
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 0.2/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits |
| 6.8/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 5 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 5 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.992 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
64Moderate
How it's scored
| 39.8/42 | Issue resolution — 95% of issues closed |
| 16.3/30 | PR acceptance — 74/136 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 74 |
| open_issues | 1 |
| closed_issues | 18 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.947 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 62 |
| 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.
Ownership & stewardship
70Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 15.4/25 | Owner reach — 139 followers of xberg-io |
| 10.6/25 | Track record — 17 public repos, account ~0 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 139 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | xberg-io |
| public_repos | 17 |
| account_age_days | 273 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Package maintenance
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on npm, packagist, pypi |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 108 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | xberg-io/liter-llm, liter-llm, @xberg-io/opencode-liter-llm |
| ecosystems | npm, packagist, pypi |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 0 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
80
Engineering practices
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 14 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .golangci.yml, .rubocop.yml |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | yes |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
65Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.liter-llm.xberg.io |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 10 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | anthropic, api-client, llm, machine-learning, openai, polyglot, python, rust, streaming, typescript |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://docs.liter-llm.xberg.io |
| docs_site | https://docs.liter-llm.xberg.io |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
47
Security posture
47Weak
How it's scored
| 4.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code |
| 2.2/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 43 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 18 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 0 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 4.7 |
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.
77
Agent context & guidance
55Moderate
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 15/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 71 of 72 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | yes |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.986 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml, e2e/c/Makefile, test_apps/c/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .golangci.yml, .rubocop.yml |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — crates/liter-llm-py/src/liter_llm/py.typed, docs-site/tsconfig.json, e2e/node/tsconfig.json, e2e/wasm/tsconfig.json, packages/node/tsconfig.json, packages/python/liter_llm/py.typed, test_apps/node/tsconfig.json, test_apps/wasm/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 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 | Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock, composer.lock, go.sum, mix.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, uv.lock |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | Taskfile.yml, e2e/c/Makefile, test_apps/c/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | crates/liter-llm-py/src/liter_llm/py.typed, docs-site/tsconfig.json, e2e/node/tsconfig.json, e2e/wasm/tsconfig.json, packages/node/tsconfig.json, packages/python/liter_llm/py.typed, test_apps/node/tsconfig.json, test_apps/wasm/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-catalog-gen/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-cli/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-ffi/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-jni/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-node/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-php/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-proxy/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-py/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm-wasm/Cargo.toml, crates/liter-llm/Cargo.toml, e2e/csharp/LiterLlm.E2eTests.csproj, e2e/elixir/mix.exs, e2e/go/go.mod, e2e/java/pom.xml, e2e/kotlin_android/build.gradle.kts, e2e/rust/Cargo.toml, packages/csharp/LiterLlm.Runtime/LiterLlm.Runtime.csproj, packages/csharp/LiterLlm/LiterLlm.csproj, packages/dart/rust/Cargo.toml, packages/elixir/mix.exs, packages/elixir/native/liter_llm_nif/Cargo.toml, packages/go/go.mod, packages/java/pom.xml, packages/kotlin-android/build.gradle.kts, packages/ruby/ext/liter_llm_rb/native/Cargo.toml, packages/swift/rust/Cargo.toml, test_apps/csharp/LiterLlm.E2eTests.csproj, test_apps/elixir/mix.exs, test_apps/go/go.mod, test_apps/java/pom.xml, test_apps/kotlin_android/build.gradle.kts, test_apps/rust/Cargo.toml |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
99Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed) |
| 53.8/55 | Manageable file sizes — 33/1,511 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Rust |
| largest_source_bytes | 606,853 |
| source_files_sampled | 1,511 |
| oversized_source_files | 33 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 20/20 | MCP server |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — example, examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | example, examples |
| has_mcp_signal | yes |
| api_schema_files | — |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.
Key facts
240GitHub stars
5contributors
1,350commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
1open issues
crates.io, npm, Packagist, PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
- deps.dev does not index pypi:liter-llm@1.12.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 19 ⇿
0Stars
19Forks
95Releases
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 0Minor 10Patch 26
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate
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).
| 6 | Binary-Artifacts | binaries present in source code |
| 3 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 2 out of 2 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 0/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow 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 |
| 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 |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 43 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 6
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | @astrojs/starlight | ^0.41.3 | docs-site/package.json |
| npm | @xberg-io/docs-theme | ^0.4.0 | docs-site/package.json |
| npm | astro | ^7.1.1 | docs-site/package.json |
| npm | sharp | ^0.35.3 | docs-site/package.json |
| npm | starlight-llms-txt | ^0.11.0 | docs-site/package.json |
| npm | @opencode-ai/plugin | ^1.17.8 | 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.
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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Packagist, PyPI, npm.