Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 13:47 UTC

JupiterMetaLabs / jmdn

JMDT Decentralized Network codebase

GoApache-2.0★ 7 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

JupiterMetaLabs/jmdn holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (35/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

6 followers18 public repossince Jan 2025

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 2 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
15.4/18Commit volume51 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year51
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~31.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.2.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases31.7

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
12.6/60Stars7 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars7
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

35Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 92% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.922
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
23.8/30PR acceptance58/73 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs58
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs15
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. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
6.1/25Owner reach6 followers of JupiterMetaLabs
12.2/25Track record18 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers6
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginJupiterMetaLabs
public_repos18
account_age_days535
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://jmdt.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics18 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsblockchain, consensus, decentralized, did, go, golang, l2, layer2, node, p2p, protocol, rollup, rpc, web3, zero-knowledge, zk, zk-rollup, zkproof
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://jmdt.io
docs_sitehttps://jmdt.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities26 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.7

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.

56Moderate · 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
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
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_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes7/329 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes127,371
source_files_sampled329
oversized_source_files7
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)AVC/BFT/proto/bft.proto, Block/proto/block.proto, CLI/proto/Connection.proto, DID/proto/DID.proto, Mempool/proto/mempool.proto, explorer/proto/explorer.proto, gETH/proto/gETH.proto, seednode/proto/seednode.proto
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesAVC/BFT/proto/bft.proto, Block/proto/block.proto, CLI/proto/Connection.proto, DID/proto/DID.proto, Mempool/proto/mempool.proto, explorer/proto/explorer.proto, gETH/proto/gETH.proto, seednode/proto/seednode.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

7GitHub stars
2contributors
51commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
1open 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 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 13:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 13/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities26 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 32
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/JupiterMetaLabs/JMDN-FastSyncv0.0.0-20260624070201-0e662a93ce62go.mod
Gogithub.com/JupiterMetaLabs/JMDN_Merkletreev0.0.0-20260413092720-b819e61566f8go.mod
Gogithub.com/JupiterMetaLabs/goroutine-orchestratorv0.1.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/JupiterMetaLabs/ionv0.4.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/bits-and-blooms/bloom/v3v3.7.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/codenotary/immudbv1.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/ethereum/go-ethereumv1.17.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.11.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5v5.3.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang/protobufv1.5.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/golang-lru/v2v2.0.7go.mod
Gogithub.com/holiman/uint256v1.3.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/libp2p/go-libp2pv0.47.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-pubsubv0.15.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-sqlite3v1.14.33go.mod
Gogithub.com/multiformats/go-multiaddrv0.16.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/olekukonko/tablewriterv0.0.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.23.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_modelv0.6.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/redis/go-redis/v9v9.19.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.34.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/tyler-smith/go-bip39v1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/yahoo/conamev0.0.0-20170609175141-84592ddf8673go.mod
Gogo.dedis.ch/delav0.2.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.42.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.12.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.79.3go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.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.

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 v0.15.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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