Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 07:36 UTC

VividCortex / gohistogram

Streaming approximate histograms in Go

GoMIT★ 176 stars⑂ 29 forkssince Jul 2013archivedView on GitHub ↗

VividCortex/gohistogram holds a health index of 14 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (69/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

14
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.

14
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 39 is calibrated to 34 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

VividCortexOrganization · verified domain
25 followers83 public repossince Nov 2012

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?

18Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 2,110 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push2,110
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,359 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv1.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,359
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
36.4/60Stars — 176 stars
12.1/25Forks — 29 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks29
stars176
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.462
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
23.6/30PR acceptance — 11/14 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs11
open_issues3
closed_issues12
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs3
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of VividCortex
25/25Track record — 83 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginVividCortex
public_repos83
account_age_days5,062

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://godoc.org/github.com/VividCortex/gohistogram
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://godoc.org/github.com/VividCortex/gohistogram
docs_sitehttp://godoc.org/github.com/VividCortex/gohistogram
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — no dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifests—
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

37Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
12.2/40Legible commit history — 11 of 48 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.229
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 50
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
44/55Manageable file sizes — 1/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes74,615
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

176GitHub stars
4contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,110days since last push
1releases
2bus factor
3open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/VividCortex/gohistogram: run: RepoClient.LocalPath: error during tarballHandler.setup: internal error: handler.httpClient.Do: Get "https://codeload.github.com/VividCortex/gohistogram/legacy.tar.gz/refs/heads/master": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: net/http: TLS handshake timeout); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 29 ⇿
0Stars
29Forks
1Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

048121620242322014-012018-092023-04
Major 1Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 9 days.

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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