Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 04:15 UTC

Duck8823 / duci

The simple ci server

GoMIT★ 74 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Apr 2018archivedView on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Duck8823/duci holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (62/100) and lowest on Vitality (22/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

16
overall / 100
Critical

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.

16
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Shunsuke MaedaPersonal account
18 followers68 public repossince Oct 2015

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 publish
Gogithub.com/duck8823/duciv0.8.15-372329 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

22At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 1,236 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject is archived
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1,236
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases35 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,329 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~41.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv0.8.15
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,329
mean_days_between_releases41.3

Community & Adoption

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

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.2/60Stars74 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars74
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_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?

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 76% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.757
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
25.3/30PR acceptance305/362 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs305
open_issues4
closed_issues92
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.958
closed_unmerged_prs57
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, OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
9.2/25Owner reach18 followers of duck8823
25/25Track record68 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers18
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginduck8823
public_repos68
account_age_days3,926
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 2,329 days ago
20/20Version history37 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/duck8823/duci
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2,329

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsci, github, docker, moby, golang
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

24At Risk · 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
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Reviewno data
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintainedproject is archived
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities96 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate2.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Code-Review, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/115 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes23,235
source_files_sampled115
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

74GitHub stars
5contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,236days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.4 / 10
2.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 04:15 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
n/aCode-ReviewFound no human activity in the last 15 changesets
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject is archived
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
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
0Vulnerabilities96 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/blang/semverv3.5.1+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/dockerv0.7.3-0.20180814124044-678d4b3a6d4cgo.mod
Gogithub.com/go-chi/chiv4.1.2+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/golang/mockv1.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmpv0.5.9go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/go-githubv17.0.0+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/labstack/gommonv0.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/moby/buildkitv0.3.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/rhysd/go-github-selfupdatev1.2.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.9.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/syndtr/goleveldbv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tcnksm/go-latestv0.0.0-20170313132115-e3007ae9052ego.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.0.0-20210402161424-2e8d93401602go.mod
Gogopkg.in/h2non/gock.v1v1.1.2go.mod
Gogopkg.in/src-d/go-git.v4v4.13.1go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v2v2.4.0go.mod
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 19 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/blang/semver3.5.1+incompatibledirect
Gogithub.com/docker/docker0.7.3-0.20180814124044-678d4b3a6d4cdirect
Gogithub.com/go-chi/chi4.1.2+incompatibledirect
Gogithub.com/golang/mock1.5.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmp0.5.9direct
Gogithub.com/google/go-github17.0.0+incompatibledirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuid1.3.0direct
Gogithub.com/labstack/gommon0.4.0direct
Gogithub.com/moby/buildkit0.3.3direct
Gogithub.com/pkg/errors0.9.1direct
Gogithub.com/rhysd/go-github-selfupdate1.2.3direct
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrus1.9.0direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobra1.4.0direct
Gogithub.com/syndtr/goleveldb1.0.0direct
Gogithub.com/tcnksm/go-latest0.0.0-20170313132115-e3007ae9052edirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.0.0-20210402161424-2e8d93401602direct
Gogopkg.in/h2non/gock.v11.1.2direct
Gogopkg.in/src-d/go-git.v44.13.1direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v22.4.0direct
Gogithub.com/azure/go-ansiterm0.0.0-20170929234023-d6e3b3328b78indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/distribution2.7.1-0.20190205005809-0d3efadf0154+incompatibleindirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-connections0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-units0.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotify1.4.9indirect
Gogithub.com/gogo/protobuf1.3.2indirect
Gogithub.com/gorilla/context1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gorilla/mux1.6.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-version1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/microsoft/go-winio0.4.13-0.20190408173621-84b4ab48a507indirect
Gogithub.com/nvveen/gotty0.0.0-20120604004816-cd527374f1e5indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/go-digest1.0.0-rc1indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/image-spec1.0.1indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.7indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto0.0.0-20210602131652-f16073e35f0cindirect
Gogotest.tools2.2.0+incompatibleindirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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