Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-22 20:20 UTC

dsandor / datamatrix

GoNo license detected★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

dsandor/datamatrix holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (62/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 499 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

19
overall / 100
Critical

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.

19
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 28 is calibrated to 22 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

David SandorPersonal account
38 followers188 public repossince Jan 2011

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?

23At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 499 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push499
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases3 version tags (no GitHub releases)
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 500 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~0.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv1.0.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release500
mean_days_between_releases0.3
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
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?

44Weak · 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
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance6/6 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
11.4/25Owner reach38 followers of dsandor
25/25Track record188 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logindsandor
public_repos188
account_age_days5,693
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

23At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

23At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
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
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities13 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate1.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18.5/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3 1.79.1 (moderate 5.9)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
34.9/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 136 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories18
affected_packages4
assessed_packages41
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 3, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 41 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions.windsurfrules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.8/40Legible commit history17 of 24 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.708
agent_instruction_files.windsurfrules
agent_instruction_max_bytes617
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 24
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/10 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes20,936
source_files_sampled10
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)docs/swagger.json, docs/swagger.yaml
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesdocs/swagger.json, docs/swagger.yaml
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
0commits, last 12 months
499days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.1 / 10
1.1aggregate

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 · 2026-08-22 20:19 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 6 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities13 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2v1.36.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/configv1.29.13go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/s3/managerv1.17.71go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3v1.79.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/fatih/colorv1.18.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/muxv1.8.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/swaggo/http-swaggerv1.3.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/swaggo/swagv1.16.4go.mod
All dependencies 41

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 33 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v21.36.3direct
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config1.29.13direct
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/s3/manager1.17.71direct
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s31.79.1direct
Gogithub.com/fatih/color1.18.0direct
Gogithub.com/gorilla/mux1.8.1direct
Gogithub.com/swaggo/http-swagger1.3.4direct
Gogithub.com/swaggo/swag1.16.4direct
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/aws/protocol/eventstream1.6.10indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/credentials1.17.66indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/ec2/imds1.16.30indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/configsources1.3.34indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/endpoints/v22.6.34indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/ini1.8.3indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/v4a1.3.34indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/accept-encoding1.12.3indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/checksum1.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/presigned-url1.12.15indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/s3shared1.18.15indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sso1.25.3indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/ssooidc1.30.1indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sts1.33.18indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/smithy-go1.22.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonpointer0.19.5indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonreference0.20.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/spec0.20.6indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/swag0.19.15indirect
Gogithub.com/josharian/intern1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/pretty0.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/kylebanks/depth1.2.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mailru/easyjson0.7.6indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorable0.1.13indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isatty0.0.20indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/swaggo/files0.0.0-20220610200504-28940afbdbfeindirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.36.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sync0.11.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.30.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/tools0.29.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/check.v11.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6cindirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v22.4.0indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 41 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s31.79.1directmoderate21.97.3
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/aws/protocol/eventstream1.6.10indirectmoderate21.97.3
golang.org/x/net0.36.0indirectmoderate131.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/sys0.30.0indirectunknown10.44.0

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.

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 statistics.