Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-09 12:27 UTC

buddy-works / dockerfile-linter

JavaScriptGPL-3.0★ 47 stars⑂ 3 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

buddy-works/dockerfile-linter holds a health index of 33 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (57/100) and lowest on Vitality (23/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

33
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

33
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 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BuddyOrganization · verified domain
71 followers62 public repossince Oct 2015

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
npmdockerlinter2.0.02,4291691 days agodockerdockerfilelintlinter

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

23At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

37Weak
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 9 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume — 5 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_year5
human_commit_share0.978
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

1Critical
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk
How it's scored
27/60Stars — 47 stars
2.5/25Forks — 3 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars47
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

56Moderate
How it's scored
45.1/80Monthly downloads — 2,429 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdockerlinter
dependents—
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads2,429
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.977

Issue & PR responsiveness

45Weak
How it's scored
37.3/42Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
2.1/30PR acceptance — 1/14 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues1
closed_issues8
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.889
closed_unmerged_prs13
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.

Ownership & stewardship

88Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
13.4/25Owner reach — 71 followers of buddy-works
25/25Track record — 62 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers71
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginbuddy-works
public_repos62
account_age_days4,006

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 91 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdockerlinter
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish91

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

30At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
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 — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

40Weak
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

34At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

23At Risk
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
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — 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 — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate2.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

79Good
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: js-yaml 5.2.1 (high 7.5)
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages4
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1
direct_affected_packages1
Matched the npm:dockerlinter@2.0.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 packages. 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.

34At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

16Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
1.2/40Legible commit history — 1 of 44 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.023
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

40Weak
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 45
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 of the last 45 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.022

Code legibility for models

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — JavaScript without a type-check config
52.4/55Manageable file sizes — 1/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes67,990
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

47GitHub stars
2contributors
5commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
1open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks

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.

12233312021-012023-052025-09

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.3 / 10
2.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-09 12:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmchalk5.6.2package.json
npmcommander15.0.0package.json
npmjs-yaml5.2.1package.json
All dependencies 120

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 117 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmchalk5.6.2direct
npmcommander15.0.0direct
npmjs-yaml5.2.1direct
npm@emnapi/core1.11.1indirect
npm@emnapi/runtime1.11.1indirect
npm@emnapi/wasi-threads1.2.2indirect
npm@jridgewell/sourcemap-codec1.5.5indirect
npm@napi-rs/wasm-runtime1.1.6indirect
npm@oxc-project/types0.139.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-android-arm-eabi0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-android-arm640.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-darwin-arm640.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-darwin-x640.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-freebsd-x640.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm-musleabihf0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm64-gnu0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-arm64-musl0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-riscv64-gnu0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-riscv64-musl0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-s390x-gnu0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-x64-gnu0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-linux-x64-musl0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-openharmony-arm640.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-arm64-msvc0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-ia32-msvc0.58.0indirect
npm@oxfmt/binding-win32-x64-msvc0.58.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-android-arm-eabi1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-android-arm641.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-darwin-arm641.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-darwin-x641.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-freebsd-x641.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm-musleabihf1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-riscv64-gnu1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-riscv64-musl1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-linux-x64-musl1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-openharmony-arm641.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-ia32-msvc1.73.0indirect
npm@oxlint/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.73.0indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-android-arm641.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-arm641.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-darwin-x641.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-freebsd-x641.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-gnu1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-arm64-musl1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-ppc64-gnu1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-s390x-gnu1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-gnu1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-linux-x64-musl1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-openharmony-arm641.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-wasm32-wasi1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-arm64-msvc1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/binding-win32-x64-msvc1.1.5indirect
npm@rolldown/pluginutils1.0.1indirect
npm@standard-schema/spec1.1.0indirect
npm@tybys/wasm-util0.10.3indirect
npm@types/chai5.2.3indirect
npm@types/deep-eql4.0.2indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@vitest/expect4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/mocker4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/pretty-format4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/runner4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/snapshot4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/spy4.1.10indirect
npm@vitest/utils4.1.10indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmassertion-error2.0.1indirect
npmchai6.2.2indirect
npmconvert-source-map2.0.0indirect
npmdetect-libc2.1.2indirect
npmes-module-lexer2.3.0indirect
npmestree-walker3.0.3indirect
npmexpect-type1.4.0indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfsevents2.3.3indirect
npmlightningcss1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-android-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-arm641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-darwin-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-freebsd-x641.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm-gnueabihf1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-arm64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-gnu1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-linux-x64-musl1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-arm64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmlightningcss-win32-x64-msvc1.32.0indirect
npmmagic-string0.30.21indirect
npmnanoid3.3.15indirect
npmobug2.1.3indirect
npmoxfmt0.58.0indirect
npmoxlint1.73.0indirect
npmpathe2.0.3indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.5indirect
npmpostcss8.5.16indirect
npmrolldown1.1.5indirect
npmsiginfo2.0.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmstackback0.0.2indirect
npmstd-env4.2.0indirect
npmtinybench2.9.0indirect
npmtinyexec1.2.4indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.17indirect
npmtinypool2.1.0indirect
npmtinyrainbow3.1.0indirect
npmtslib2.8.1indirect
npmvite8.1.4indirect
npmvitest4.1.10indirect
npmwhy-is-node-running2.3.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

Installing npm:dockerlinter@2.0.0 pulls in 4 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
js-yaml5.2.1directhigh25.4.1

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with buddy-works/dockerfile-linter. Read them side by side →

100eslint/eslintFind and fix problems in your JavaScript code.Exceptional99stylelint/stylelintA mighty CSS linter that helps you avoid errors and enforce conventions.Exceptional96detekt/detektStatic code analysis for KotlinExceptional96e2b-dev/E2BOpen-source, secure environment with real-world tools for enterprise-grade agents.Exceptional96textlint/textlinttextlint is the pluggable linter for natural language text.Exceptional95webpro-nl/knip✂️ Find unused files, dependencies and exports in your JavaScript and TypeScript projects. Knip it before you ship it!Exceptional

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 — npm.