Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 14:07 UTC

crazy-max / go-cross

Go CGO cross-compiler Docker image

Shell · DockerfileMIT★ 53 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Dec 2021View on GitHub ↗

crazy-max/go-cross holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (31/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

54
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.

54
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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CrazyMaxPersonal account
2,775 followers261 public repossince Jul 2012@docker

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
17.2/18Commit volume81 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year81
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases39 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~94.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count39
latest_release_tagv0.37.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases94.7

Community & Adoption

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

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
27.8/60Stars53 stars
5/25Forks5 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks5
stars53
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.78
How it's scored
30/42Issue resolution71% of issues closed
26/30PR acceptance104/120 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs104
open_issues2
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.714
closed_unmerged_prs16
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
24.8/25Owner reach2,775 followers of crazy-max
25/25Track record261 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,775
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logincrazy-max
public_repos261
account_age_days5,119
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

43Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdocker, golang, cgo, cross-compiler
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilesno dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesgo.sum
manifests
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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.

31At Risk · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeShell without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageShell
largest_source_bytes8,402
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

53GitHub stars
5contributors
81commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
39releases
1bus factor
2open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 14 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt3.2.2+incompatibleindirect
Gogithub.com/labstack/echo/v44.7.2indirect
Gogithub.com/labstack/gommon0.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorable0.1.11indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isatty0.0.14indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/bytebufferpool1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasttemplate1.2.1indirect
Gogolang.org/x/crypto0.0.0-20210817164053-32db794688a5indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.0.0-20211015210444-4f30a5c0130findirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20211103235746-7861aae1554bindirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.3.7indirect
Gogolang.org/x/time0.0.0-20201208040808-7e3f01d25324indirect
Gogorm.io/driver/sqlite1.1.4indirect
Gogorm.io/gorm1.21.13indirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.