# AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go — health index 36/100 (Weak)

> Inspection of the public repository AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak 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/AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/AppControlLabs/appcontrol-mcp-go.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 51/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 37/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 37/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 44/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 33/100 | At Risk |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 37/100 | Weak |

The weighted overall 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | AppControl MCP is a local server connecting AI agents and IDEs like Claude, Cursor, and Windsurf to system history provided by the AppControl desktop app. Ask which apps used CPU, GPU, RAM, or disk, and what caused slowdowns, heat spikes, or webcam, mic, and location access. Built for deep historical monitoring and useful real-world PC insights. |
| Homepage | https://www.appcontrol.com |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 43 |
| Forks | 1 |
| Created | 2026-04-08 |
| Last push | 2026-08-02 |
| Latest release | v1.1.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 7 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | ai-agents, anthropic-claude, claude, claude-ai, claude-code, claude-desktop, cpu-monitoring, gpu-monitoring, mcp, model-context-protocol, performance-analysis, privacy, privacy-tools, process-monitoring, resource-monitor, windows, windows-desktop |

## Vitality — 51/100 (Moderate)

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

### Development activity — 29/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 18 / 36 | last push 47 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 2.1 / 36 | 3/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 8.1 / 18 | 7 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 1 / 10 | 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1 |

### Release discipline — 83/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 55 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~108.5 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 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 37/100 (Weak)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 26/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 26.3 / 60 | 43 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 1 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 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 — 37/100 (Weak)

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) — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 34/100 (At Risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | not met | 0 / 42 | 0% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 1/1 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 69/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 9.2 / 25 | 18 followers of AppControlLabs |
| Track record | partial | 10.1 / 25 | 1 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 44/100 (Weak)

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

### Engineering practices — 24/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.appcontrol.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 17 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 33/100 (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 — 33/100 (At Risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 0.8 / 7.5 | 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not 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 | partial | 4.5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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 | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 37/100 (Weak)

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 — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 41/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | cmd/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | not met | 0 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/2 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 33/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## 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