# aperturerobotics/go-git — health index 60/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository aperturerobotics/go-git by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/aperturerobotics/go-git
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/aperturerobotics/go-git
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/aperturerobotics/go-git/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/aperturerobotics/go-git.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 77/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 12/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 69/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 48/100 | Weak |
| Security | 16% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 86/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A highly extensible Git implementation in pure Go. |
| Homepage | https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/go-git/go-git/v6 |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-05-06 |
| Last push | 2026-09-05 |
| Latest release | v6.0.0-alpha.3 |
| Commits (last year) | 763 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Fork | yes |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/go-git/go-git/v6 | v6.0.0-alpha.5 | — |

## Vitality — 77/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 28.8 / 36 | last push 14 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 27.7 / 36 | 40/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 763 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 2 / 10 | 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2 |

### Release discipline — 78/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 92 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | partial | 27 / 36 | latest release 136 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~18.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 12/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 69/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 65/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 16 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 29% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 97 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 60 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 74/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | met | 30 / 30 | 1/1 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 68/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 12.7 / 25 | 57 followers of aperturerobotics |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 90 public repos, account ~10 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 48/100 (Weak)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 7 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yaml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/go-git/go-git/v6 |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 62/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 61/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 60 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 1.5 / 7.5 | 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| SAST | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 12 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 65/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 20 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 14.6 / 35 | 3 affected: golang.org/x/net v0.54.0 (moderate 6.5), golang.org/x/crypto v0.52.0 (unknown), golang.org/x/text v0.37.0 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 34.4 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 120 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 86/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | .github/copilot-instructions.md, AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 95 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 82/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yaml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 2 / 10 | 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 8 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.7 / 55 | 4/660 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Community profile unavailable
- go package 'github.com/go-git/go-git/v6' points at a different repository (https://github.com/go-git/go-git); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt