Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-21 20:55 UTC

duggytuxy / syswarden

Linux defense. Your host. Your rules. Host-local Linux defense with auditable, fail-closed enforcement.

Go · PythonGPL-3.0★ 395 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Feb 2026View on GitHub ↗

duggytuxy/syswarden holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Laurent MinnePersonal account
369 followers7 public repossince Feb 2020SysWarden

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
25.6/36Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,586 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,586
human_commit_share0.88
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year37

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 52 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.5 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count52
latest_release_tagv4.10.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases6.5

Community & Adoption

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

69Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.1/60Stars — 395 stars
12.5/25Forks — 33 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars395
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

45Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 5 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.991
How it's scored
17.3/42Issue resolution — 41% of issues closed
28.4/30PR acceptance — 352/372 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs352
open_issues33
closed_issues23
prs_merged_7d57
prs_decided_7d57
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d57
issue_closed_ratio0.411
closed_unmerged_prs20
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach — 369 followers of duggytuxy
18.6/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers369
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginduggytuxy
public_repos7
account_age_days2,429
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 17 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

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://syswarden.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscybersecurity-tools, firewall, firewall-configuration, firewall-rules, ipv4-address, security-tools, syswarden, firewalld, linux, nftables, docker-security, wazuh, wireguard, iptables, ufw, waf, hids, hips, waap, ipv6-address
has_wikino
homepagehttps://syswarden.io
docs_sitehttps://syswarden.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

82Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages34
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 34 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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 87 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.989
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — scripts/versionctl/go.mod, src/core/syswarden-cli/go.mod, src/core/syswarden-core/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsscripts/versionctl/go.mod, src/core/syswarden-cli/go.mod, src/core/syswarden-core/go.mod, src/core/syswarden-tui/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.2/55Manageable file sizes — 40/1,207 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes561,695
source_files_sampled1,207
oversized_source_files40
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
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

395GitHub stars
5contributors
1,586commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
52releases
1bus factor
33open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch go package 'syswarden.local/versionctl' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
52Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

01325383322026-022026-062026-10
Major 1Minor 7Patch 44
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.8 / 10
7.8aggregate

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 · 2026-10-21 20:54 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
0Code-ReviewFound 0/27 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
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 34 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/duggytuxy/ahocorasickv0.0.0-20260730090121-324ac534d992indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gabriel-vasile/mimetypev1.4.15indirect
Gogithub.com/gdamore/encodingv1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gdamore/tcell/v2v2.13.10indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/localesv0.14.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/universal-translatorv0.18.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/validator/v10v10.30.5indirect
Gogithub.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2v2.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmpv0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/google/nftablesv0.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/leodido/go-urnv1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorfulv1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mdlayher/netlinkv1.7.3-0.20250113171957-fbb4dce95f42indirect
Gogithub.com/mdlayher/socketv0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2v2.4.3indirect
Gogithub.com/rivo/tviewv0.42.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7indirect
Gogithub.com/sagikazarmark/locaferov0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/sourcegraph/concv0.3.1-0.20240121214520-5f936abd7ae8indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/castv1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0indirect
Gogithub.com/subosito/gotenvv1.6.0indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.57.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.60.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.23.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.49.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.42.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 34 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/cryptov0.57.0indirectunknown1—

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.