# Antonboom/testifylint — health index 13/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository Antonboom/testifylint by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 13 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/Antonboom/testifylint
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/Antonboom/testifylint
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/Antonboom/testifylint/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/Antonboom/testifylint.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-04
- Methodology: metrics 2.5.0, report schema 0.30.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 79/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 30/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 69/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The Golang linter that checks usage of github.com/stretchr/testify. |
| Classification | cli |
| Homepage | https://github.com/stretchr/testify |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 172 |
| Forks | 18 |
| Created | 2022-06-10 |
| Last push | 2026-08-01 |
| Latest release | v1.6.4 |
| Commits (last year) | 29 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | go, golang, linter, static-analysis, testify |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/Antonboom/testifylint | v1.6.4 | — |

## Vitality — 64/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 3 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 4.8 / 36 | 7/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 13.3 / 18 | 29 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 15 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 63/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 25 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 16.2 / 36 | latest release 326 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~50.5 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 41 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 58/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 48/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 36.2 / 60 | 172 stars |
| Forks | partial | 10.3 / 25 | 18 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 1.7 / 15 | 3 watchers |

### Community health — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 61/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 32/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 91% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 10.8 / 13.5 | 8 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 73/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 33.9 / 42 | 81% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 23.3 / 30 | 115/148 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 6 / 15 | Found 10/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 59/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 14.6 / 25 | 105 followers of Antonboom |
| Track record | partial | 22.9 / 25 | 30 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | partial | 26 / 35 | latest publish 326 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 27 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 79/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 22 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### Documentation — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://github.com/stretchr/testify |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 5 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 30/100 (At Risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 13/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 22 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 3 / 7.5 | Found 10/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 15 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 3 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 20/100 (At Risk)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | partial | 20 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1); Russia: owner (1); Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 69/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 69 of 83 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Taskfile.yml, analyzer/testdata/src/vendor/github.com/go-task/slim-sprig/v3/Taskfile.yml, analyzer/testdata/src/vendor/github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2/Makefile, analyzer/testdata/src/vendor/github.com/stretchr/objx/Taskfile.yml |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 17 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 4/226 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt