Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 21:21 UTC

df-mc / dragonfly

Minecraft Bedrock Edition server software written in Go

GoMIT★ 823 stars⑂ 196 forkssince Sep 2019View on GitHub ↗

#minecraft #mcpe-server #mcpe #go #golang #df-mc #bedrock-edition #minecraft-bedrock-edition #minecraft-server #hacktoberfest

df-mc/dragonfly holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account 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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

DragonflyOrganization

51 followers26 public repossince Sep 2019

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/df-mc/dragonfly	v0.11.0	-	70	7 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

90Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
26.3/36	Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 168 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	168
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	38

Release discipline

88Excellent

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 69 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36	Release recency — latest release 7 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~31.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	69
latest_release_tag	v0.11.0
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	7
mean_days_between_releases	31.8

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?

73Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

75Good

How it's scored

47.3/60	Stars — 823 stars
19.1/25	Forks — 196 forks
8.5/15	Watchers — 35 watchers

Inputs used

forks	196
stars	823
watchers	35
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

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

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 82 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	82
top_contributor_share	0.493

Issue & PR responsiveness

83Excellent

How it's scored

36.7/42	Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
21.8/30	PR acceptance — 590/812 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	590
open_issues	58
closed_issues	398
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.873
closed_unmerged_prs	222
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.

Ownership & stewardship

81Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
12.3/25	Owner reach — 51 followers of df-mc
22.4/25	Track record — 26 public repos, account ~6 yr old

Inputs used

followers	51
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	df-mc
public_repos	26
account_age_days	2,509

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 7 days ago
20/20	Version history — 70 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/df-mc/dragonfly
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	7

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 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	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://discord.gg/U4kFWHhTNR
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	minecraft, mcpe-server, mcpe, go, golang, df-mc, bedrock-edition, minecraft-bedrock-edition, minecraft-server, hacktoberfest
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://discord.gg/U4kFWHhTNR
docs_site	https://discord.gg/U4kFWHhTNR
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?

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no 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 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, 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	12
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	25
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1, moderate 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 25 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

88Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.9/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/870 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	112,021
source_files_sampled	870
oversized_source_files	1

Key facts

823GitHub stars

82contributors

168commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

69releases

2bus factor

58open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10

3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 21:20 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	28 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10	Contributors	project has 32 contributing companies or organizations
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0	Vulnerabilities	10 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 13

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/brentp/intintmap	`v0.0.0-20251106190759-56907b1f8479`	go.mod
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/df-mc/goleveldb	`v1.1.9`	go.mod
Go	github.com/df-mc/worldupgrader	`v1.0.21`	go.mod
Go	github.com/go-gl/mathgl	`v1.2.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml	`v1.9.5`	go.mod
Go	github.com/sandertv/gophertunnel	`v1.57.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/segmentio/fasthash	`v1.0.3`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`v0.0.0-20250103183323-7d7fa50e5329`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.22.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.23.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.28.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 25

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 13 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/brentp/intintmap	`v0.0.0-20251106190759-56907b1f8479`	direct
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	direct
Go	github.com/df-mc/goleveldb	`v1.1.9`	direct
Go	github.com/df-mc/worldupgrader	`v1.0.21`	direct
Go	github.com/go-gl/mathgl	`v1.2.0`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	direct
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml	`v1.9.5`	direct
Go	github.com/sandertv/gophertunnel	`v1.57.0`	direct
Go	github.com/segmentio/fasthash	`v1.0.3`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`v0.0.0-20250103183323-7d7fa50e5329`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.22.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.23.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.28.0`	direct
Go	github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3	`v3.17.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/df-mc/go-playfab	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/df-mc/go-xsapi	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/df-mc/jsonc	`v1.0.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4	`v4.1.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang/snappy	`v0.0.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/compress	`v1.18.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/sandertv/go-raknet	`v1.15.1-0.20260112202637-beca0b10c217`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.38.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.28.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.12.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 25 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/go-jose/go-jose/v4	`v4.1.3`	indirect	high	2	`4.1.4`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.38.0`	indirect	moderate	10	`1.26.3`

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 v0.16.0 — 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