Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 11:57 UTC

yuja / tree-sitter-qmljs

QML grammar for the tree-sitter parsing library

C · JavaScriptMIT★ 33 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗

yuja/tree-sitter-qmljs holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Vitality (39/100). It was last updated 101 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Yuya NishiharaPersonal account
164 followers34 public repossince Dec 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
crates.iotree-sitter-qmljs0.3.121,2786101 days agoparsingqmlincrementaltree-sittertext-editors
npmtree-sitter-qmljs0.3.15376101 days agoparsertree-sitterqml
PyPItree-sitter-qmljs0.3.14151101 days agoincrementalparsingtree-sitterqml

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

39Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 101 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push101
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 101 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~331.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tag0.3.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release101
mean_days_between_releases331.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

49Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
24.4/60Stars — 33 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars33
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
58/80Monthly downloads — 22,230 downloads/month across crates, npm, pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagestree-sitter-qmljs, tree-sitter-qmljs, tree-sitter-qmljs
dependents—
ecosystemscrates, npm, pypi
total_downloads129,654
monthly_downloads22,230
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 97% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.969
How it's scored
32.7/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
20.5/30PR acceptance — 15/22 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues2
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.778
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
15.9/25Owner reach — 164 followers of yuja
23.2/25Track record — 34 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers164
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginyuja
public_repos34
account_age_days6,142
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates, npm, pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 101 days ago
20/20Version history — 6 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagestree-sitter-qmljs, tree-sitter-qmljs, tree-sitter-qmljs
ecosystemscrates, npm, pypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish101

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.rs/tree-sitter-qmljs
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstree-sitter, qml, parser
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_sitehttps://docs.rs/tree-sitter-qmljs
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages31
unassessed_packages5
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 31 resolved dependencies against OSV. 5 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://doc.qt.io/llms.txt)
9.1/40Legible commit history — 17 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://doc.qt.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.17
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, examples/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — bindings/python/tree_sitter_qmljs/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, examples/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsbindings/python/tree_sitter_qmljs/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml, bindings/go/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
52.2/55Manageable file sizes — 1/20 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes9,844,381
source_files_sampled20
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

33GitHub stars
5contributors
16commits, last 12 months
101days since last push
6releases
1bus factor
2open issues
crates.io, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
4Releases

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.

0246810121212022-072024-072026-07
Major 0Minor 2Patch 2

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.1 / 10
3.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 11:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6CI-Tests3 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/21 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
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iotree-sitter-language0.1Cargo.toml
npmnode-addon-api^8.2.1package.json
npmnode-gyp-build^4.8.2package.json
All dependencies 36

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.iotree-sitter-language—direct
npmnode-addon-api8.9.0direct
npmnode-gyp-build4.8.4direct
crates.iocc—indirect
crates.iotree-sitter—indirect
Gogithub.com/smacker/go-tree-sitter0.0.0-20230720070738-0d0a9f78d8f8indirect
npmbase64-js1.5.1indirect
npmbl4.1.0indirect
npmbuffer5.7.1indirect
npmchownr1.1.4indirect
npmend-of-stream1.4.5indirect
npmfs-constants1.0.0indirect
npmieee7541.2.1indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmmkdirp-classic0.5.3indirect
npmnode-abi3.94.0indirect
npmnpm-run-path3.1.0indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmprebuildify6.0.1indirect
npmpump3.0.4indirect
npmreadable-stream3.6.2indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmsemver7.8.5indirect
npmstring_decoder1.3.0indirect
npmtar-fs2.1.5indirect
npmtar-stream2.2.0indirect
npmtree-sitter0.21.1indirect
npmtree-sitter-cli0.24.7indirect
npmtree-sitter-javascript0.23.1indirect
npmtree-sitter-typescript0.23.2indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPItree-sitter—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 5 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.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — crates.io, npm, PyPI.