Public record
Software health reportschema 0.18.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 11:27 UTC

zoidsh / meru

:postbox: Gmail desktop app for macOS, Windows & Linux (formerly Gmail Desktop)

TypeScriptAGPL-3.0★ 1,025 stars⑂ 103 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗

zoidsh/meru holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (91/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (53/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
overall / 100
Good

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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ZoidOrganization
4 followers2 public repossince Jan 2024

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

91Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
27.7/36Commit cadence40/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume489 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year489
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year40
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.56.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases5

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
48.8/60Stars1,025 stars
16.7/25Forks103 forks
6/15Watchers13 watchers
Inputs used
forks103
stars1,025
watchers13
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.879
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance212/263 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_prs212
open_issues6
closed_issues258
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.977
closed_unmerged_prs51
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
5/25Owner reach4 followers of zoidsh
8.4/25Track record2 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginzoidsh
public_repos2
account_age_days905
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://meru.so
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgmail, electron, macos, windows, linux, app, email, gmail-desktop, ubuntu
has_wikino
homepagehttps://meru.so
docs_sitehttps://meru.so
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 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
2.5/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilitiesno data
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Vulnerabilities. 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_packages2
unassessed_packages58
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 2 resolved dependencies against OSV. 58 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.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_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes13,421
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingpackages/app/tsconfig.json, packages/dark-theme/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-gmail/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-google-app/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-renderer/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-google-app/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-main/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-popup/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/ui/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
0/10Reproducible environment
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
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configspackages/app/tsconfig.json, packages/dark-theme/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-gmail/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-google-app/tsconfig.json, packages/preload-renderer/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-google-app/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-main/tsconfig.json, packages/renderer-popup/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/ui/tsconfig.json, 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 codeTypeScript (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes1/189 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes81,403
source_files_sampled189
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

1,025GitHub stars
18contributors
489commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
6open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 1,025 ★ / 103 ⇿
1,025Stars
103Forks

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

02004006008001,0001,2001,025102182016-052021-062026-07

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 11:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
n/aVulnerabilitiesinternal error: vulnerabilitiesClient.ListUnfixedVulnerabilities: osvscanner.DoScan: client error: status="400 Bad Request" body={"code":3,"message":"error in query at index 53: rpc error: code = InvalidArgument desc = invalid hash"}
All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@base-ui/react^1.4.0indirect
npm@dnd-kit/helpers^0.5.0indirect
npm@dnd-kit/react^0.5.0indirect
npm@electron-toolkit/preload^3.0.2indirect
npm@electron-toolkit/typed-ipc^1.0.2indirect
npm@electron-toolkit/utils^4.0.0indirect
npm@fontsource-variable/inter^5.2.5indirect
npm@tailwindcss/postcss^4.2.2indirect
npm@tailwindcss/typography^0.5.19indirect
npm@tailwindcss/vite^4.2.2indirect
npm@tanstack/react-form^1.28.5indirect
npm@tanstack/react-query^5.90.5indirect
npm@tanstack/react-table^8.21.3indirect
npm@total-typescript/tsconfig^1.0.4indirect
npm@types/bun^1.3.12indirect
npm@types/react^19.1.16indirect
npm@types/react-dom^19.1.9indirect
npm@vitejs/plugin-react^6.0.1indirect
npmclass-variance-authority^0.7.1indirect
npmclsx^2.1.1indirect
npmdayjs^1.11.13indirect
npmelectron^43.1.1indirect
npmelectron-builder26.15.6indirect
npmelectron-context-menu^4.1.0indirect
npmelectron-dl^4.0.0indirect
npmelectron-log^5.4.0indirect
npmelectron-store^10.0.1indirect
npmelectron-updater^6.6.2indirect
npmelement-ready^7.0.0indirect
npmfast-xml-parser^5.5.7indirect
npmfrimousse^0.3.0indirect
npmis-online^12.0.2indirect
npmlefthook^2.1.2indirect
npmlucide-react^0.475.0indirect
npmmeru-api-client2.1.1indirect
npmnode-machine-id^1.1.12indirect
npmoxfmt^0.57.0indirect
npmoxlint^1.72.0indirect
npmpostcss^8.5.8indirect
npmreact^19.1.1indirect
npmreact-dom^19.1.1indirect
npmreact-hotkeys-hook^5.1.0indirect
npmreact-markdown^10.1.0indirect
npmrehype-raw^7.0.0indirect
npmrolldown^1.0.0-rc.10indirect
npmselect-dom^9.3.0indirect
npmserialize-error^13.0.1indirect
npmshadcn^4.1.0indirect
npmsonner^2.0.7indirect
npmtailwind-merge^3.3.1indirect
npmtailwindcss^4.2.2indirect
npmtw-animate-css^1.4.0indirect
npmtype-fest^5.2.0indirect
npmtypescript^7.0.2indirect
npmuse-debounce^10.0.6indirect
npmvite^8.0.1indirect
npmvite-plugin-singlefile^2.3.2indirect
npmwouter^3.7.1indirect
npmzod^3.24.2indirect
npmzustand^5.0.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 2 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 58 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 v0.18.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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