Public record
Software health reportschema 0.15.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 12:04 UTC

LarsArtmann / upd

Upgrade Package Dependencies (UPD)

GoMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2023forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

LarsArtmann/upd holds a health index of 51 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

51
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.

51
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Lars ArtmannPersonal account
34 followers82 public repossince Nov 2016Artmann Technologies GmbH

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 publishTags
npmdemo-app1.1.017034233 days agodemo
Gogithub.com/LarsArtmann/updv1.1.0-23 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume82 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_year82
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases2 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv1.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases0
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
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
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_readmeno
has_licenseno
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?

41Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 82% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.817
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11.1/25Owner reach34 followers of LarsArtmann
25/25Track record82 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers34
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginLarsArtmann
public_repos82
account_age_days3,528
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable2 package(s) on go, npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 3 days ago
12/20Version history3 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdemo-app, github.com/LarsArtmann/upd
ecosystemsgo, npm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://npmjs.com/upd
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttp://npmjs.com/upd
docs_sitehttp://npmjs.com/upd
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

42Weak · 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-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes14,711
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentNix, 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_nixyes
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
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)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/26 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes10,049
source_files_sampled26
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
3contributors
82commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
2releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 12:04 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmexpress^4.18.0demo/package.json
npmlodash^4.17.20demo/package.json
npmsemverlatestdemo/package.json
Gocharm.land/fang/v2v2.0.1go.mod
Gocharm.land/lipgloss/v2v2.0.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/Masterminds/semver/v3v3.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gobwas/globv0.2.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/larsartmann/go-atomic-writev0.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/larsartmann/go-error-familyv0.7.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10go.mod
All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocharm.land/fang/v2v2.0.1direct
Gocharm.land/lipgloss/v2v2.0.5direct
Gogithub.com/gobwas/globv0.2.3direct
Gogithub.com/larsartmann/go-atomic-writev0.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/larsartmann/go-error-familyv0.7.0direct
Gogithub.com/masterminds/semver/v3v3.5.0direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10direct
npmexpress^4.18.0direct
npmlodash^4.17.20direct
npmsemverlatestdirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/colorprofilev0.4.3indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/ultravioletv0.0.0-20260713092251-4bee1914c0cfindirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/ansiv0.11.7indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/charmtonev0.0.0-20260713092006-0d683c34c74bindirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termiosv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/windowsv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/displaywidthv0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2v2.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gofrs/flockv0.13.0indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorfulv1.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.24indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/cancelreaderv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mangov0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mango-cobrav1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/mango-pflagv0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/roffv0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7indirect
Gogithub.com/xo/terminfov0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0indirect
npmjest^29.5.0indirect
npmtypescript^5.0.0indirect
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 statisticsnpm, Go.