Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:19 UTC

yincongcyincong / wechat_chatter

微信(wechat hook macos) mac 收发消息逆向

JavaScript · GoGPL-3.0★ 496 stars⑂ 239 forkssince Nov 2025View on GitHub ↗

yincongcyincong/wechat_chatter holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (38/100). It was last updated 10 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

jackyinPersonal account
77 followers55 public repossince Dec 2016

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?

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
20.8/36Commit cadence30/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume205 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year205
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year30
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases18 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv0.0.18
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases12.1

Community & Adoption

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

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
43.7/60Stars496 stars
19.8/25Forks239 forks
5.6/15Watchers11 watchers
Inputs used
forks239
stars496
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
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?

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 92% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.922
How it's scored
37.2/42Issue resolution88% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance6/7 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues3
closed_issues23
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.885
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
13.6/25Owner reach77 followers of yincongcyincong
24.7/25Track record55 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers77
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginyincongcyincong
public_repos55
account_age_days3,516
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdecompiler, macos, wechat, hook
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 2 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
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
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 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 17 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.

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.

44Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstraponebot/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesonebot/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/56 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes59,799
source_files_sampled56
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)onebot/proto/app_msg.proto, onebot/proto/common_resp.proto, onebot/proto/img_msg.proto, onebot/proto/text_msg.proto, onebot/proto/video_msg.proto, onebot/proto/wx_msg.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesonebot/proto/app_msg.proto, onebot/proto/common_resp.proto, onebot/proto/img_msg.proto, onebot/proto/text_msg.proto, onebot/proto/video_msg.proto, onebot/proto/wx_msg.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

496GitHub stars
4contributors
205commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
3open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch go package 'github.com/yincongcyincong/weixin-macos/onebot' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-20 19:18 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 2/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/frida/frida-gov1.0.2onebot/go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0onebot/go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3onebot/go.mod
Gogithub.com/mgutz/ansiv0.0.0-20200706080929-d51e80ef957donebot/go.mod
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.35.1onebot/go.mod
Gogithub.com/wdvxdr1123/go-silkv0.0.0-20220304095002-f67345df09eaonebot/go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11onebot/go.mod
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1onebot/go.mod
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/frida/frida-gov1.0.2direct
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3direct
Gogithub.com/mgutz/ansiv0.0.0-20200706080929-d51e80ef957ddirect
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.35.1direct
Gogithub.com/wdvxdr1123/go-silkv0.0.0-20220304095002-f67345df09eadirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11direct
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1direct
Gogithub.com/dustin/go-humanizev1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.14indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.22indirect
Gogithub.com/ncruces/go-strftimev1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/remyoudompheng/bigfftv0.0.0-20230129092748-24d4a6f8daecindirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.45.0indirect
Gomodernc.org/libcv1.72.3indirect
Gomodernc.org/mathutilv1.7.1indirect
Gomodernc.org/memoryv1.11.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 17 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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