Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 09:28 UTC

chronicleprotocol / challenger

You can run a Chronicle Challenger Bot to help secure the price messages our validators emit. A Challenger searches for opPoked events for ScribeOptimistic contract. It Verifies poke schnorr signature and challenges it, if it's invalid.

SolidityNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#hacktoberfest

chronicleprotocol/challenger holds a health index of 62 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated 27 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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.

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)

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 58 is calibrated to 62 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ChronicleOrganization · verified domain

73 followers40 public repossince Jul 2021

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/chronicleprotocol/challenger	v0.1.3	-	9	200 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

51Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

51Moderate

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 27 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18	Commit volume — 17 commits in the last year
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

commits_last_year	17
human_commit_share	0.922
days_since_last_push	27
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 5 releases published
7.2/36	Release recency — latest release 522 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~134.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	5
latest_release_tag	v0.1.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	522
mean_days_between_releases	134.9

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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

3Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	0
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

67Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
0/22.5	License — no license file detected
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	no
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

22At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.741

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
24/30	PR acceptance — 24/30 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	24
open_issues	0
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	3
prs_decided_30d	3
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	6
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

86Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
13.4/25	Owner reach — 73 followers of chronicleprotocol
22.1/25	Track record — 40 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	73
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	chronicleprotocol
public_repos	40
account_age_days	1,886

Package maintenance

91Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
26/35	Publish recency — latest publish 200 days ago
20/20	Version history — 9 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/chronicleprotocol/challenger
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	200

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

80Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.chroniclelabs.org/Developers/Guides/runChallengerK8s
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 1 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	hacktoberfest
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://docs.chroniclelabs.org/Developers/Guides/runChallengerK8s
docs_site	https://docs.chroniclelabs.org/Developers/Guides/runChallengerK8s
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 12 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
0/2.5	License — license file not detected
3/7.5	Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	4.8

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	6
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	32
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 32 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.3/40	Legible commit history — 28 of 59 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.475
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

76Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — contract/MockScribeOptimistic/lib/forge-std/lib/ds-test/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
0/11	Static type checking
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 64
8/8	Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 64 commits are automated dependency updates
7/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

has_nix	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	contract/MockScribeOptimistic/lib/forge-std/lib/ds-test/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.078

Code legibility for models

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/45	Type-checkable code — Solidity without a type-check config
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/12 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Solidity
largest_source_bytes	25,626
source_files_sampled	12
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

0GitHub stars

3contributors

17commits, last 12 months

27days since last push

5releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10

4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 09:27 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
5	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8	CI-Tests	12 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
0	License	license file not detected
4	Maintained	5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
7	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5	Vulnerabilities	5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/defiweb/go-eth	`v0.7.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.23.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/sirupsen/logrus	`v1.9.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 32

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/defiweb/go-eth	`v0.7.0`	direct
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.23.2`	direct
Go	github.com/sirupsen/logrus	`v1.9.3`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.1`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	github.com/beorn7/perks	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btcd	`v0.24.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btcd/btcec/v2	`v2.3.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btcd/btcutil	`v1.1.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btcd/chaincfg/chainhash	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4	`v4.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/defiweb/go-anymapper	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/defiweb/go-rlp	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/defiweb/go-sigparser	`v0.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/text	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/munnerz/goautoneg	`v0.0.0-20191010083416-a7dc8b61c822`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_model	`v0.6.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/common	`v0.66.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/procfs	`v0.16.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/objx	`v0.5.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/tyler-smith/go-bip39	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v2	`v2.4.2`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.45.0`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.8`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect
Go	nhooyr.io/websocket	`v1.8.10`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 32 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
github.com/btcsuite/btcd	`v0.24.0`	indirect	critical	2	`0.24.2-beta.rc1`
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	indirect	unknown	4	`0.56.0`

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.

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 — Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records