Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-26 18:39 UTC

Ozhiganov / client

Keybase Go Library, Client, Service, OS X, iOS, Android, Electron

Go · JavaScript · Objective-CBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2017forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryMobile applicationWeb interfaceDesktop applicationCommand-line toolhow this is determined

Ozhiganov/client holds a health index of 5 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (66/100) and lowest on Security (3/100). It was last updated 735 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

5
overall / 100
Critical

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.

5
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 29 is calibrated to 23 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

ArtonePersonal account
36 followers426 public repossince Apr 2016@Vozro

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

20At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 735 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push735
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 87 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,591 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~29.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count87
latest_release_tagv1.0.18
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3,591
mean_days_between_releases29.3
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
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesci.appveyor.com, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 21% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 35 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled35
top_contributor_share0.207

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

58Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.3/25Owner reach — 36 followers of Ozhiganov
25/25Track record — 426 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers36
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginOzhiganov
public_repos426
account_age_days3,772
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

3Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

3Critical
How it's scored
4.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 281 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate1.3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier3
security_posture_before_jurisdiction13
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

23At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
22.9/40Legible commit history — 43 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.43
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

72Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — go/Makefile, go/vendor/github.com/keybase/saltpack/encoding/basex/Makefile, protocol/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesgo/Makefile, go/vendor/github.com/keybase/saltpack/encoding/basex/Makefile, protocol/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/bind/android/app/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/bind/android/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/bind/android/hello/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/ivy/android/app/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/ivy/android/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/example/ivy/android/ivy/build.gradle, go/vendor/golang.org/x/mobile/misc/androidstudio/build.gradle, shared/react-native/android/app/build.gradle, shared/react-native/android/build.gradle, shared/react-native/android/keybaselib/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.7/55Manageable file sizes — 11/1,949 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes346,085
source_files_sampled1,949
oversized_source_files11

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
35contributors
0commits, last 12 months
735days since last push
87releases
3bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • Could not fetch npm package 'keybase-protocol' from its registry
  • Could not fetch npm package 'pvl-tools' from its registry
  • Could not fetch npm package 'package-desktop' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.3 / 10
1.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-26 18:38 UTC

6Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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 28 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities281 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 60
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmavdl-compiler1.3.11protocol/package.json
npmavdl2json2.2.3protocol/package.json
npmbluebird^2.10.0protocol/package.json
npmcamelcase^4.0.0protocol/package.json
npmcolors^1.1.2protocol/package.json
npmiced-coffee-script^108.0.9protocol/package.json
npmiced-error0.0.9protocol/package.json
npmiced-logger^0.0.6protocol/package.json
npmiced-runtime^1.0.2protocol/package.json
npmiced-utils^0.1.22protocol/package.json
npmminimist^1.1.0protocol/package.json
npmcson^3.0.2pvl-tools/package.json
npmdocopt^0.6.2pvl-tools/package.json
npmjson-stable-stringify^1.0.1pvl-tools/package.json
npmbuffer5.0.3shared/package.json
npmcore-js2.4.1shared/package.json
npmcross-env3.1.4shared/package.json
npmdeep-diff0.3.4shared/package.json
npmdeep-equal1.0.1shared/package.json
npmemoji-datasource2.4.4shared/package.json
npmemoji-mart0.3.7shared/package.json
npmframed-msgpack-rpc1.1.13shared/package.json
npmgetenv0.7.0shared/package.json
npmiced-runtime1.0.3shared/package.json
npmimmutable3.8.1shared/package.json
npmjsonfile2.4.0shared/package.json
npmlodash4.17.4shared/package.json
npmmaterial-ui0.15.4shared/package.json
npmmenubar5.1.0shared/package.json
npmmkdirp0.5.1shared/package.json
npmmoment2.17.1shared/package.json
npmpurepack1.0.4shared/package.json
npmqrcode-generator1.0.5shared/package.json
npmreact15.4.2shared/package.json
npmreact-addons-css-transition-group15.4.2shared/package.json
npmreact-addons-shallow-compare15.4.2shared/package.json
npmreact-dom15.4.2shared/package.json
npmreact-list0.8.0shared/package.json
npmreact-native0.41.2shared/package.json
npmreact-native-camera0.6.0shared/package.json
npmreact-native-push-notification2.2.1shared/package.json
npmreact-redux5.0.2shared/package.json
npmreact-tap-event-plugin2.0.1shared/package.json
npmreact-virtualized8.11.0shared/package.json
npmrecompose0.22.0shared/package.json
npmredux3.6.0shared/package.json
npmredux-saga0.14.3shared/package.json
npmredux-thunk2.2.0shared/package.json
npmsemver5.3.0shared/package.json
npmshallowequal0.2.2shared/package.json
npmtransit-immutable-js0.7.0shared/package.json
npmtransit-js0.8.846shared/package.json
npmutil0.10.3shared/package.json
npmdel2.2.0visdiff/package.json
npmgm1.22.0visdiff/package.json
npmlodash4.13.1visdiff/package.json
npmmkdirp0.5.1visdiff/package.json
npmoctonode0.7.6visdiff/package.json
npms34.4.0visdiff/package.json
npmappdmg0.4.5packaging/desktop/package.json
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 Ozhiganov/client. Read them side by side →

100DataDog/dd-trace-jsDatadog APM client for Node.jsExceptional100Azure/azure-sdk-for-jsThis repository is for active development of the Azure SDK for JavaScript (NodeJS & Browser). For consumers of the SDK we recommend visiting our public developer docs at https://docs.microsoft.com/javascript/azure/ or our versioned developer docs at https://azure.github.io/azure-sdk-for-js. Exceptional100hashicorp/consulConsul is a distributed, highly available, and data center aware solution to connect and configure applications across dynamic, distributed infrastructure.Exceptional100mui/material-uiMaterial UI: Comprehensive React component library that implements Google's Material Design. Free forever.Exceptional100carbon-design-system/carbonA design system built by IBMExceptional100apache/airflowApache Airflow - A platform to programmatically author, schedule, and monitor workflowsExceptional

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.