Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 06:34 UTC

JUXON-AI / jxpkg

GoNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Aug 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

JUXON-AI/jxpkg holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

JUXON-AIOrganization
2 followers3 public repossince Aug 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/JUXON-AI/jxpkgv0.0.26-265 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

76Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

60Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 109 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year109
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 9 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 35 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count9
latest_release_tagv0.0.14
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases0.7
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
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5License — no license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
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?

46Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.743

Issue & PR responsiveness

42Weak
How it's scored
8.4/42Issue resolution — 20% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance — 35/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs35
open_issues4
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d13
prs_decided_30d14
issue_closed_ratio0.2
closed_unmerged_prs2
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.

Ownership & stewardship

38Weak
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of JUXON-AI
4.8/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginJUXON-AI
public_repos3
account_age_days77

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 26 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/JUXON-AI/jxpkg
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

90Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

40Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 37 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, vendor/github.com/aws/smithy-go/AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, vendor/github.com/aws/smithy-go/AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,765

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

90Excellent
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, vendor/github.com/KyleBanks/depth/Makefile, vendor/github.com/aws/smithy-go/Makefile, vendor/github.com/cloudwego/base64x/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/Makefile, vendor/github.com/go-playground/universal-translator/Makefile, vendor/github.com/go-playground/validator/v10/Makefile, vendor/github.com/goccy/go-json/Makefile, vendor/github.com/goccy/go-yaml/Makefile, vendor/github.com/leodido/go-urn/makefile, vendor/github.com/redis/go-redis/v9/Makefile, vendor/github.com/swaggo/files/Makefile, vendor/github.com/swaggo/swag/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/atomic/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/multierr/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/zap/Makefile, vendor/golang.org/x/arch/x86/x86asm/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, vendor/github.com/KyleBanks/depth/Makefile, vendor/github.com/aws/smithy-go/Makefile, vendor/github.com/cloudwego/base64x/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gin-gonic/gin/Makefile, vendor/github.com/go-playground/universal-translator/Makefile, vendor/github.com/go-playground/validator/v10/Makefile, vendor/github.com/goccy/go-json/Makefile, vendor/github.com/goccy/go-yaml/Makefile, vendor/github.com/leodido/go-urn/makefile, vendor/github.com/redis/go-redis/v9/Makefile, vendor/github.com/swaggo/files/Makefile, vendor/github.com/swaggo/swag/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/atomic/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/multierr/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/zap/Makefile, vendor/golang.org/x/arch/x86/x86asm/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.06
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/139 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes26,357
source_files_sampled139
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
109commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
9releases
1bus factor
4open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 06:33 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities37 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2v1.43.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/configv1.32.34go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/credentialsv1.19.33go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/s3/managerv1.22.39go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3v1.106.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.11.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-yamlv1.18.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5v5.3.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/redis/go-redis/v9v9.19.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/sashabaranov/go-openaiv1.42.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/satori/go.uuidv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/swaggo/filesv1.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/swaggo/gin-swaggerv1.6.1go.mod
Gogo.uber.org/zapv1.28.0go.mod
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.4go.mod
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1go.mod
Gogorm.io/driver/mysqlv1.6.0go.mod
Gogorm.io/gormv1.31.1go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with JUXON-AI/jxpkg. Read them side by side →

100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional100cloudnative-pg/cloudnative-pgThe most popular Kubernetes Operator for PostgreSQL.Exceptional100openfga/openfgaA high performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google ZanzibarExceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional100microsoft/onnxruntimeONNX Runtime: cross-platform, high performance ML inferencing and training acceleratorExceptional100hashicorp/consulConsul is a distributed, highly available, and data center aware solution to connect and configure applications across dynamic, distributed infrastructure.Exceptional

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.