A red or green that nobody can explain helps no one. Husn grounds each project's health in the work itself and shows you exactly why the score is where it is.
Husn reads your tools - never changes them
Most health scores are a feeling, picked by the person filling in the report. Two projects in identical trouble can show different colors depending on who is reporting, and nobody can trace a score back to anything concrete.
Across many projects, inconsistent scoring makes comparison meaningless, the thing a portfolio most needs from a score.
A score is only useful if you trust the inputs, and hand picked colors give you nothing to trust.
Recomputing honest health for every project by hand is impossible at scale, so it gets approximated and the approximation drifts.
Husn reads and reasons, and never changes your tools.
Replace a hand picked color with a score that reflects the work and explains itself.
Rank projects on the same consistent basis, so attention goes where the work, not the reporting, says it should.
Catch the project sliding from green to amber while there is still time to act, not after.
From real signals in the work, such as slipping dependencies, aging blockers, throughput changes, and quiet scope shifts, each shown as a reason behind the score.
They can, and Husn will show where a self reported status and the work based score disagree, which is often the most useful signal of all.
No. It reads the work to compute the score and never writes anything back.
Continuously, as the underlying work changes, rather than on a reporting cadence.
Connect your projects and Husn will score each one from live signals, with the reasons attached, in about fifteen minutes.