Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-14 12:35 UTC

danieljustus / symaira-fetch

AI-native web fetch engine for LLM agents — browser impersonation, semantic DOM pipeline, MCP server. CGO-free Go.

GoCustom license★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

danieljustus/symaira-fetch holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (82/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
overall / 100
Good

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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DanielPersonal account
15 followers22 public repossince Jul 2021

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?

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
3.5/36Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18Commit volume — 70 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year70
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year5
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 12 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv0.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases2.2

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

46Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.9
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
29.1/30PR acceptance — 63/65 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs63
open_issues0
closed_issues154
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2
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 backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.7/25Owner reach — 15 followers of danieljustus
19.8/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindanieljustus
public_repos22
account_age_days1,810
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://symaira.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, browser-impersonation, cli, go, golang, llm, mcp, web-scraping
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://symaira.com
docs_sitehttps://symaira.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

56Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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.

82Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,448
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
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
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/79 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes53,095
source_files_sampled79
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
2contributors
70commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-14 12:35 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/JohannesKaufmann/html-to-markdown/v2v2.5.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/Noooste/azuretls-clientv1.13.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/Noooste/fhttpv1.0.15go.mod
Gogithub.com/PuerkitoBio/goqueryv1.12.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/danieljustus/symaira-corekitv0.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 23 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/danieljustus/symaira-corekitv0.5.0direct
Gogithub.com/johanneskaufmann/html-to-markdown/v2v2.5.2direct
Gogithub.com/noooste/azuretls-clientv1.13.2direct
Gogithub.com/noooste/fhttpv1.0.15direct
Gogithub.com/puerkitobio/goqueryv1.12.0direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/andybalholm/brotliv1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/andybalholm/cascadiav1.3.4indirect
Gogithub.com/bdandy/go-errorsv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/burntsushi/tomlv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/cloudflare/circlv1.6.3indirect
Gogithub.com/fatih/colorv1.18.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gaukas/clienthellodv0.4.2indirect
Gogithub.com/gaukas/godicttlsv0.0.4indirect
Gogithub.com/google/gopacketv1.1.19indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/johanneskaufmann/domv0.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.18.2indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.14indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.22indirect
Gogithub.com/noooste/go-socks4v0.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/noooste/uquic-gov1.0.5indirect
Gogithub.com/noooste/utlsv1.3.20indirect
Gogithub.com/noooste/websocketv1.0.3indirect
Gogithub.com/quic-go/qpackv0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/refraction-networking/utlsv1.8.2indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.9indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
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.