Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 21:20 UTC

anguslees / kubecfg

A tool for managing complex enterprise Kubernetes environments as code.

RustNo license detected★ 48 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2017View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

anguslees/kubecfg holds a health index of 36 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (57/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (26/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

36
overall / 100
Weak

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.

36
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Angus LeesPersonal account
250 followers226 public repossince Mar 2010@Canva

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?

44Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 46/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 0 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 700 days
0/18Commit volume — 52 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 0 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 700 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year52
human_commit_share0
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year46
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 1 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 3,492 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv0.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3,492
mean_days_between_releases—

Community & Adoption

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

26At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.1/60Stars — 48 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars48
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 62% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.625
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.7/30PR acceptance — 234/245 decided PRs merged
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_prs234
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs11
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
17.3/25Owner reach — 250 followers of anguslees
25/25Track record — 226 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers250
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginanguslees
public_repos226
account_age_days6,059
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicskubernetes, jsonnet, kubernetes-resources, kubecfg, workflow, infrastructure
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
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 — 30 out of 30 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 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5License — license file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 13 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
8.3/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 3 affected: hyper 0.10.16 (critical 9.1), json 0.12.4 (unknown), yaml-rust 0.4.5 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
29/40No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,929 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories24
affected_packages11
assessed_packages98
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 2, moderate 2, low 1, unknown 4
direct_affected_packages3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 98 resolved dependencies against OSV. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. Reachability is not analyzed.

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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 100 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsCargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share1
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageRust
largest_source_bytes23,194
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files0
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 — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

48GitHub stars
2contributors
52commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
crates.iopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'kubecfg' from its registry

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 · 2026-10-18 21:20 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained13 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities15 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.ioclap2.34Cargo.toml
crates.iojson0.12.4Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.21Cargo.toml
crates.ioenv_logger0.3Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper0.10Cargo.toml
crates.iohyper-native-tls0.3.0Cargo.toml
crates.ioyaml-rust0.4.5Cargo.toml
crates.ioerror-chain0.12.4Cargo.toml
crates.iourl1.7.2Cargo.toml
crates.iojsonnet-rs0.17Cargo.toml
All dependencies 98

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 87 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioclap2.34.0direct
crates.ioenv_logger0.3.5direct
crates.ioerror-chain0.12.4direct
crates.iohyper0.10.16direct
crates.iohyper-native-tls0.3.0direct
crates.iojson0.12.4direct
crates.iojsonnet-rs0.17.0direct
crates.iolog0.3.9direct
crates.iolog0.4.34direct
crates.iourl1.7.2direct
crates.ioyaml-rust0.4.5direct
crates.ioaddr2line0.25.1indirect
crates.ioadler22.0.1indirect
crates.ioaho-corasick0.5.3indirect
crates.ioansi_term0.12.1indirect
crates.ioantidote1.1.0indirect
crates.ioatty0.2.14indirect
crates.iobacktrace0.3.76indirect
crates.iobase640.9.3indirect
crates.iobitflags1.3.2indirect
crates.iobitflags2.13.2indirect
crates.iobyteorder1.5.0indirect
crates.iocc1.8.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.5indirect
crates.iocore-foundation0.10.1indirect
crates.iocore-foundation-sys0.8.7indirect
crates.ioerrno0.3.14indirect
crates.iofastrand2.5.0indirect
crates.iofind-msvc-tools0.1.14indirect
crates.ioforeign-types0.3.2indirect
crates.ioforeign-types-shared0.1.1indirect
crates.iogetrandom0.4.3indirect
crates.iogimli0.32.3indirect
crates.iohermit-abi0.1.19indirect
crates.iohermit-abi0.5.3indirect
crates.iohttparse1.10.1indirect
crates.ioidna0.1.5indirect
crates.iojsonnet-sys0.17.0indirect
crates.iokernel32-sys0.2.2indirect
crates.iolanguage-tags0.2.2indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.190indirect
crates.iolinked-hash-map0.5.6indirect
crates.iolinux-raw-sys0.12.1indirect
crates.iomatches0.1.10indirect
crates.iomemchr0.1.11indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.3indirect
crates.iomime0.2.6indirect
crates.iominiz_oxide0.8.9indirect
crates.ionative-tls0.2.18indirect
crates.ionum_cpus1.17.0indirect
crates.ioobject0.37.3indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.ioopenssl0.10.81indirect
crates.ioopenssl-macros0.1.1indirect
crates.ioopenssl-probe0.2.1indirect
crates.ioopenssl-sys0.9.117indirect
crates.iopercent-encoding1.0.1indirect
crates.iopkg-config0.3.34indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.ior-efi6.0.0indirect
crates.ioregex0.1.80indirect
crates.ioregex-syntax0.3.9indirect
crates.iorustc-demangle0.1.28indirect
crates.iorustix1.1.5indirect
crates.iosafemem0.3.3indirect
crates.ioschannel0.1.29indirect
crates.iosecurity-framework3.7.0indirect
crates.iosecurity-framework-sys2.17.0indirect
crates.ioshlex2.0.1indirect
crates.iostrsim0.8.0indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iotempfile3.27.0indirect
crates.iotextwrap0.11.0indirect
crates.iothread-id2.0.0indirect
crates.iothread_local0.2.7indirect
crates.iotime0.1.45indirect
crates.iotinyvec1.13.3indirect
crates.iotraitobject0.1.1indirect
crates.iotypeable0.1.2indirect
crates.iounicase1.4.2indirect
crates.iounicode-bidi0.3.18indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.26indirect
crates.iounicode-normalization0.1.25indirect
crates.iounicode-width0.1.14indirect
crates.ioutf8-ranges0.1.3indirect
crates.iovcpkg0.2.15indirect
crates.iovec_map0.8.2indirect
crates.ioversion_check0.1.5indirect
crates.ioversion_check0.9.5indirect
crates.iowasi0.10.0+wasi-snapshot-preview1indirect
crates.iowinapi0.2.8indirect
crates.iowinapi0.3.9indirect
crates.iowinapi-build0.1.1indirect
crates.iowinapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu0.4.0indirect
crates.iowindows-link0.2.1indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.61.2indirect
Dependency advisories 11

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 98 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 11 carry known advisories, of which 3 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
hyper0.10.16directcritical60.14.12
traitobject0.1.1indirectcritical3—
regex0.1.80indirecthigh21.5.5
thread_local0.2.7indirecthigh21.1.4
idna0.1.5indirectmoderate21.0.0
time0.1.45indirectmoderate20.2.23
atty0.2.14indirectlow3—
json0.12.4directunknown1—
yaml-rust0.4.5directunknown1—
ansi_term0.12.1indirectunknown1—
safemem0.3.3indirectunknown1—

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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.