# chattocorp/chatto — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository chattocorp/chatto by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/chattocorp/chatto
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/chattocorp/chatto
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/chattocorp/chatto/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/c/chattocorp/chatto.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-28
- Methodology: metrics 2.5.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 47/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 41/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 84/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A fully-featured team and group chat application that you can easily selfhost. |
| Classification | network-service, library, cli |
| Homepage | https://chatto.run |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 2,393 |
| Forks | 106 |
| Created | 2026-04-08 |
| Last push | 2026-07-28 |
| Latest release | v0.4.19 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,182 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | chat, communication, gdpr-compliant, privacy-first, screensharing, video-calls, voice-calls |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | docs-website | — | 0 |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 11.1 / 36 | 16/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1182 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~1.6 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### 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 — 58/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 54.8 / 60 | 2,393 stars |
| Forks | partial | 16.8 / 25 | 106 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 4.3 / 15 | 7 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (AGPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | not met | 0 / 80 | 0 downloads/month across npm |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 47/100 (Weak)

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) — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 65/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 27.7 / 42 | 66% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 28.6 / 30 | 1063/1115 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 46/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 11.4 / 25 | 37 followers of chattocorp |
| Track record | partial | 4.4 / 25 | 2 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Publish recency. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on npm |
| Publish recency | excluded | 0 / 35 | no data |
| Version history | partial | 4 / 20 | 0 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 3 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.js |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://chatto.run |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 7 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 41/100 (Weak)

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 — 41/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 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 | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 11 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### 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 — 84/100 (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, CLAUDE.md, apps/docs-website/AGENTS.md, apps/frontend/AGENTS.md, apps/frontend/CLAUDE.md, cli/AGENTS.md, proto/AGENTS.md, proto/chatto/admin/v1/AGENTS.md, proto/chatto/api/v1/AGENTS.md, proto/chatto/auth/v1/AGENTS.md, proto/chatto/discovery/v1/AGENTS.md, proto/chatto/realtime/v1/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | mise.toml |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | apps/docs-website/tsconfig.json, apps/frontend/tsconfig.json, packages/api-types/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.9 / 55 | 24/1233 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | proto/chatto/admin/v1/diagnostics.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/event_log.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/members.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/permissions.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/roles.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/room_layout.proto, proto/chatto/admin/v1/server.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/account.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/asset_uploads.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/attachments.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/common.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/external_identities.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/link_previews.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/member_directory.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/message_search.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/message_types.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/messages.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/notification_preferences.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/notifications.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/pagination.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/permissions.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/presence.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/push_notifications.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/reactions.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/read_state.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/roles.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/room_directory.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/room_timeline.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/rooms.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/server.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/server_state.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/threads.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/user_status.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/users.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/viewer.proto, proto/chatto/api/v1/voice_calls.proto, proto/chatto/auth/v1/external_identity_auth.proto, proto/chatto/config/v1/config.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/asset_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/auth_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/authorization_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/config_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/encryption_keys.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/event.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/live_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/message_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/models.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/moderation_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/notification.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/projection_snapshots.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/push.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/rbac_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/reaction_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/room_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/room_group_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/thread_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/user_events.proto, proto/chatto/core/v1/user_preferences.proto, proto/chatto/discovery/v1/server.proto, proto/chatto/operator/v1/users.proto, proto/chatto/realtime/v1/realtime.proto, proto/chatto/search/v1/search.proto |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos, examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch go package 'hmans.de/chatto' from its registry
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## 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