Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 02:45 UTC

claymore666 / docker-net-dhcp

Docker network plugin: containers get real DHCP leases from the DHCP server your LAN already runs, through the project's own Go DHCP engine, dhcp-golib. Network driver beside null IPAM, or network and IPAM driver at once. Bridge, macvlan and ipvlan, IPv4 and IPv6. Maintained fork of devplayer0/docker-net-dhcp.

Go · ShellGPL-3.0★ 9 stars⑂ 1 forksince May 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

#bridge #containers #dhcp #dhcp-client #dhcpv6 #docker #docker-network #docker-plugin #golang #homelab #ipam #ipvlan #libnetwork #macvlan #network-driver #networking

claymore666/docker-net-dhcp holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ChrisPersonal account

4 followers25 public repossince Feb 2015

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/claymore666/docker-net-dhcp	v1.9.0	-	57	14 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

73Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9/36	Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 1,176 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	1,176
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	13

Release discipline

98Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 42 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~4.6 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	42
latest_release_tag	v2.1.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	0
mean_days_between_releases	4.6

Community & Adoption

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

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

15Critical

How it's scored

14.6/60	Stars — 9 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	9
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
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	yes
readme_badges	6
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io, www.bestpractices.dev
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

26At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 92% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.92

Issue & PR responsiveness

75Good

How it's scored

37.3/42	Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
27.9/30	PR acceptance — 487/524 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	487
open_issues	50
closed_issues	397
prs_merged_7d	34
prs_decided_7d	38
prs_merged_30d	43
prs_decided_30d	53
issue_closed_ratio	0.888
closed_unmerged_prs	37
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

47Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
5/25	Owner reach — 4 followers of claymore666
22.3/25	Track record — 25 public repos, account ~11 yr old

Inputs used

followers	4
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	claymore666
public_repos	25
account_age_days	4,214

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 14 days ago
20/20	Version history — 57 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/claymore666/docker-net-dhcp
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	14

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 27 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://claymore666.github.io/docker-net-dhcp
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 16 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	bridge, containers, dhcp, dhcp-client, dhcpv6, docker, docker-network, docker-plugin, golang, homelab, ipam, ipvlan, libnetwork, macvlan, network-driver, networking
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://claymore666.github.io/docker-net-dhcp
docs_site	https://claymore666.github.io/docker-net-dhcp
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

76Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
1.2/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5	SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
3/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 6 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	7.6

Dependency advisories

65Good

How it's scored

14.8/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: github.com/docker/docker v28.5.2+incompatible (high 7.2)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.9/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 169 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	10
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	66
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 66 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

76Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 8/287 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	137,611
source_files_sampled	287
oversized_source_files	8

Key facts

9GitHub stars

4contributors

1,176commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

42releases

1bus factor

50open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10

7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 02:44 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
5	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: Passing
0	Code-Review	Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 27 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
10	SAST	SAST tool is run on all commits
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
8	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
4	Vulnerabilities	6 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 9

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/claymore666/dhcp-golib	`v0.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/containerd/errdefs	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/docker/docker	`v28.5.2+incompatible`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gorilla/handlers	`v1.5.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure	`v1.5.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/sirupsen/logrus	`v1.10.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/vishvananda/netlink	`v1.3.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/vishvananda/netns	`v0.0.5`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 66

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/claymore666/dhcp-golib	`v0.1.0`	direct
Go	github.com/containerd/errdefs	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/docker/docker	`v28.5.2+incompatible`	direct
Go	github.com/gorilla/handlers	`v1.5.2`	direct
Go	github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure	`v1.5.0`	direct
Go	github.com/sirupsen/logrus	`v1.10.1`	direct
Go	github.com/vishvananda/netlink	`v1.3.1`	direct
Go	github.com/vishvananda/netns	`v0.0.5`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	direct
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/containerd/errdefs/pkg	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/containerd/log	`v0.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/distribution/reference	`v0.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/docker/go-connections	`v0.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/docker/go-units	`v0.5.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/felixge/httpsnoop	`v1.0.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-logr/logr	`v1.4.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-logr/stdr	`v1.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/microsoft/go-winio	`v0.6.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/moby/docker-image-spec	`v1.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/moby/sys/atomicwriter	`v0.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/moby/term	`v0.5.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/morikuni/aec	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/opencontainers/go-digest	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/opencontainers/image-spec	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/pkg/errors	`v0.9.1`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdk	`v1.2.1`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttp	`v0.68.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracehttp	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.15.0`	indirect
Go	gotest.tools/v3	`v3.5.2`	indirect
PyPI	babel	`2.18.0`	indirect
PyPI	backrefs	`7.0`	indirect
PyPI	certifi	`2026.5.20`	indirect
PyPI	charset-normalizer	`3.4.7`	indirect
PyPI	click	`8.4.1`	indirect
PyPI	colorama	`0.4.6`	indirect
PyPI	ghp-import	`2.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	idna	`3.18`	indirect
PyPI	jinja2	`3.1.6`	indirect
PyPI	markdown	`3.10.2`	indirect
PyPI	markupsafe	`3.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	mergedeep	`1.3.4`	indirect
PyPI	mike	`2.2.0`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs	`1.6.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-get-deps	`0.2.2`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.7`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material-extensions	`1.3.1`	indirect
PyPI	packaging	`26.2`	indirect
PyPI	paginate	`0.5.7`	indirect
PyPI	pathspec	`1.1.1`	indirect
PyPI	platformdirs	`4.10.0`	indirect
PyPI	pygments	`2.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	pymdown-extensions	`11.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyparsing	`3.3.2`	indirect
PyPI	python-dateutil	`2.9.0.post0`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml-env-tag	`1.1`	indirect
PyPI	requests	`2.34.2`	indirect
PyPI	six	`1.17.0`	indirect
PyPI	urllib3	`2.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	verspec	`0.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	watchdog	`6.0.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 66 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
github.com/docker/docker	`v28.5.2+incompatible`	direct	high	9	`2.0.0-beta.14`
go.opentelemetry.io/otel	`v1.43.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.44.0`

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

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records