Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 10:59 UTC

IceCodeNew / mtg

Highly opinionated MTPROTO proxy for Telegram

GoMIT★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince May 2024forkView on GitHub ↗

KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

IceCodeNew/mtg holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (68/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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.

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)

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 44 is calibrated to 41 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

IceCodeNewPersonal account

259 followers88 public repossince Oct 2017PKU

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/IceCodeNew/mtg	v1.0.7	-	2	2181 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
13.8/36	Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 381 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	381
human_commit_share	0.86
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	20

Release discipline

32At Risk

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 3 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,181 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~344.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	3
latest_release_tag	v1.0.7
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	2,181
mean_days_between_releases	344.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	1
watchers	0
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	3
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	codecov.io, github.com, pkg.go.dev
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

52Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 91% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 29 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	29
top_contributor_share	0.911

Issue & PR responsiveness

51Moderate

How it's scored

28/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
16.5/30	PR acceptance — 50/91 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	50
open_issues	1
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.667
closed_unmerged_prs	41
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

66Good

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.4/25	Owner reach — 259 followers of IceCodeNew
25/25	Track record — 88 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	259
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	IceCodeNew
public_repos	88
account_age_days	3,261

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

Package maintenance

61Moderate

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 2,181 days ago
12/20	Version history — 2 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/IceCodeNew/mtg
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	2,181

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

41Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

1Critical

How it's scored

0/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 25 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
4/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	7.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	58
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	78

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

89Excellent

How it's scored

26.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.55.0 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	3
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	45
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 45 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

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 73 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.849
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

77Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — .mise.toml
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	.mise.toml
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.14

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/233 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	19,961
source_files_sampled	233
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1GitHub stars

29contributors

381commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

3releases

1bus factor

1open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.8 / 10

7.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 10:59 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
1	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	25 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
8	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
9	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7	Vulnerabilities	3 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 23

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/OneOfOne/xxhash	`v1.2.8`	go.mod
Go	github.com/alecthomas/kong	`v1.16.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/alecthomas/units	`v0.0.0-20240927000941-0f3dac36c52b`	go.mod
Go	github.com/armon/go-socks5	`v0.0.0-20160902184237-e75332964ef5`	go.mod
Go	github.com/babolivier/go-doh-client	`v0.0.0-20201028162107-a76cff4cb8b6`	go.mod
Go	github.com/jarcoal/httpmock	`v1.4.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mccutchen/go-httpbin/v2	`v2.25.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/panjf2000/ants/v2	`v2.12.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.24.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`v1.35.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/smira/go-statsd	`v1.3.4`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tylertreat/BoomFilters	`v0.0.0-20251117164519-53813c36cc1b`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.55.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.58.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/beevik/ntp	`v1.5.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/ncruces/go-dns	`v1.3.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2	`v2.4.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/pires/go-proxyproto	`v0.15.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/things-go/go-socks5	`v0.1.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/txthinking/socks5	`v0.0.0-20260601051520-339b044ab0eb`	go.mod
Go	github.com/yl2chen/cidranger	`v1.0.2`	go.mod

All dependencies 45

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 23 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/alecthomas/kong	`v1.16.1`	direct
Go	github.com/alecthomas/units	`v0.0.0-20240927000941-0f3dac36c52b`	direct
Go	github.com/armon/go-socks5	`v0.0.0-20160902184237-e75332964ef5`	direct
Go	github.com/babolivier/go-doh-client	`v0.0.0-20201028162107-a76cff4cb8b6`	direct
Go	github.com/beevik/ntp	`v1.5.0`	direct
Go	github.com/jarcoal/httpmock	`v1.4.2`	direct
Go	github.com/mccutchen/go-httpbin/v2	`v2.25.0`	direct
Go	github.com/ncruces/go-dns	`v1.3.3`	direct
Go	github.com/oneofone/xxhash	`v1.2.8`	direct
Go	github.com/panjf2000/ants/v2	`v2.12.1`	direct
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2	`v2.4.3`	direct
Go	github.com/pires/go-proxyproto	`v0.15.0`	direct
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.24.1`	direct
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`v1.35.1`	direct
Go	github.com/smira/go-statsd	`v1.3.4`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.0`	direct
Go	github.com/things-go/go-socks5	`v0.1.1`	direct
Go	github.com/txthinking/socks5	`v0.0.0-20260601051520-339b044ab0eb`	direct
Go	github.com/tylertreat/boomfilters	`v0.0.0-20251117164519-53813c36cc1b`	direct
Go	github.com/yl2chen/cidranger	`v1.0.2`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.55.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.58.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	direct
Go	github.com/beorn7/perks	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/d4l3k/messagediff	`v1.2.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/compress	`v1.19.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/text	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-colorable	`v0.1.14`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.20`	indirect
Go	github.com/munnerz/goautoneg	`v0.0.0-20191010083416-a7dc8b61c822`	indirect
Go	github.com/patrickmn/go-cache	`v2.1.0+incompatible`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_model	`v0.6.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/common	`v0.70.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/procfs	`v0.21.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal	`v1.14.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/objx	`v0.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/txthinking/runnergroup	`v0.0.0-20250224021307-5864ffeb65ae`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v2	`v2.4.4`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.21.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.41.0`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.11`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 45 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.55.0`	direct	unknown	3	`0.56.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records