Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 21:31 UTC

codize-dev / sandbox

💻 A sandboxed code execution engine.

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

codize-dev/sandbox holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
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.

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

Ownership

CodizeOrganization
1 follower9 public repossince Dec 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/codize-dev/sandboxv0.14.1-2654 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
9.6/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 37 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 95 days
16.6/18Commit volume291 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 37 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 95 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year291
human_commit_share0.37
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases26 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 54 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~11.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count26
latest_release_tagv0.14.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release54
mean_days_between_releases11.1
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgoreportcard.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

43Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance77/84 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs77
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs7
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of codize-dev
8.8/25Track record9 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincodize-dev
public_repos9
account_age_days281

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 54 days ago
20/20Version history26 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/codize-dev/sandbox
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish54

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://github.com/codize-dev/sandbox/pkgs/container/sandbox
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/codize-dev/sandbox/pkgs/container/sandbox
docs_sitehttps://github.com/codize-dev/sandbox/pkgs/container/sandbox
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6/7.5Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.context/docs/nsjail/CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.md, cmd/CLAUDE.md, e2e/CLAUDE.md, internal/handler/CLAUDE.md, internal/sandbox/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history37 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.context/docs/nsjail/CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.md, cmd/CLAUDE.md, e2e/CLAUDE.md, internal/handler/CLAUDE.md, internal/sandbox/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,298
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapmise.toml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkinginternal/sandbox/defaults/node-typescript/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice28 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance49 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesmise.toml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsinternal/sandbox/defaults/node-typescript/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.28
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.49
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes26,675
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
291commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
26releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.5 / 10
6.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 21:31 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests27 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/4 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/labstack/echo/v5v5.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v4v4.0.0-rc.6go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.43.0go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

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 statisticsGo.