Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 20:49 UTC

GoogleCloudPlatform / docker-credential-gcr

A Docker credential helper for GCR users

GoApache-2.0★ 316 stars⑂ 94 forkssince Aug 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

GoogleCloudPlatform/docker-credential-gcr holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (78/100) and lowest on Vitality (57/100). It was last updated 39 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

22,392 followers1,533 public repossince Nov 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/docker-credential-gcr/v2v2.2.1-4274 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

57Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 39 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume — 15 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push39
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 59 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 74 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~70.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count59
latest_release_tagv2.2.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release74
mean_days_between_releases70.4

Community & Adoption

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

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.5/60Stars — 316 stars
16.4/25Forks — 94 forks
8.7/15Watchers — 37 watchers
Inputs used
forks94
stars316
watchers37
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, goreportcard.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 27 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled27
top_contributor_share0.43
How it's scored
29.2/42Issue resolution — 70% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 110/140 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs110
open_issues18
closed_issues41
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.695
closed_unmerged_prs30
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 22,392 followers of GoogleCloudPlatform
25/25Track record — 1,533 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers22,392
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGoogleCloudPlatform
public_repos1,533
account_age_days5,084

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 74 days ago
20/20Version history — 42 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/docker-credential-gcr/v2
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish74

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
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 site — https://gcr.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdocker-client, docker, gcloud, gcloud-sdk, docker-registry, docker-image-registry, docker-images, compute-engine
has_wikino
homepagehttps://gcr.io
docs_sitehttps://gcr.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

77Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained — 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
1/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages15
unassessed_packages0
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 15 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.

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.

68Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
28.4/40Legible commit history — 50 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.532
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/29 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes10,812
source_files_sampled29
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

316GitHub stars
27contributors
15commits, last 12 months
39days since last push
59releases
2bus factor
18open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 94 ⇿
0Stars
94Forks
55Releases

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.

0204060801009022016-082021-072026-07
Major 1Minor 6Patch 45

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-18 20:48 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
6CI-Tests13 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gocloud.google.com/go/authv0.22.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/cliv29.6.2+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/docker-credential-helpersv0.9.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang/mockv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/subcommandsv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/toqueteos/webbrowserv1.2.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.36.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0go.mod
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocloud.google.com/go/authv0.22.0direct
Gogithub.com/docker/cliv29.6.2+incompatibledirect
Gogithub.com/docker/docker-credential-helpersv0.9.8direct
Gogithub.com/golang/mockv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/subcommandsv1.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/toqueteos/webbrowserv1.2.1direct
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.36.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0direct
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute/metadatav0.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/enterprise-certificate-proxyv0.3.17indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2v2.23.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1indirect
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.9.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.46.0indirect
Gogotest.tools/v3v3.0.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 15 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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