Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 05:05 UTC

easyp-tech / service

gRPC service for running protobuf plugins in Docker containers

GoCustom license★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Sep 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

easyp-tech/service holds a health index of 27 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (91/100) and lowest on Security (24/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

27
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

27
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). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

EasyPOrganization
13 followers16 public repossince Oct 2023

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/servicev1.1.0-2413 days ago
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/service/apiv1.1.0-713 days ago
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/service/sdkv1.1.0-713 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
19.4/36Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 268 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year268
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year28
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 13 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv1.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release13
mean_days_between_releases5.6

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

43Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.934
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
14.1/30PR acceptance — 15/32 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs15
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs17
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
8.2/25Owner reach — 13 followers of easyp-tech
15/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logineasyp-tech
public_repos16
account_age_days1,100

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 13 days ago
20/20Version history — 24 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/easyp-tech/service, github.com/easyp-tech/service/api, github.com/easyp-tech/service/sdk
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish13

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

70Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

24At Risk · 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 — 3 out of 3 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 0/11 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
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not 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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 31 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.7
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier24
security_posture_before_jurisdiction47
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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.

91Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://easyp.tech/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://easyp.tech/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.97
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes17,000
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 80 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.8
toolchain_manifestsapi/go.mod, go.mod, registry/apple/servicetalk/pom.xml, registry/bufbuild/connect-kotlin/pom.xml, registry/bufbuild/validate-java/pom.xml, registry/community/salesforce-reactive-grpc/pom.xml, registry/connectrpc/kotlin/pom.xml, registry/grpc/csharp/build.csproj, registry/grpc/java/pom.xml, registry/grpc/kotlin/pom.xml, registry/protocolbuffers/csharp/build.csproj, registry/protocolbuffers/java/pom.xml, registry/protocolbuffers/kotlin/pom.xml, sdk/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/181 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes45,405
source_files_sampled181
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — api/easyp/generator/v1/generator.proto
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_filesapi/easyp/generator/v1/generator.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

2GitHub stars
2contributors
268commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 05:04 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-Tests3 out of 3 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 0/11 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
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities31 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 46
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/protoc-gen-easydocv0.4.0api/go.mod
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/protoc-gen-mcpv0.5.0api/go.mod
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.6.1api/go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.83.2api/go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11api/go.mod
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/service/apiv0.14.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/service/sdkv0.14.0go.mod
Goaidanwoods.dev/go-pasetov1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2v1.43.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/configv1.32.31go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/credentialsv1.19.30go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/s3v1.106.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gofrs/uuid/v5v5.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/grafana/pyroscope-gov1.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware/providers/prometheusv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware/v2v2.3.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/hellofresh/health-go/v5v5.5.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/jmoiron/sqlxv1.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/lib/pqv1.12.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.6.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/pressly/goose/v3v3.27.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.23.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_modelv0.6.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/sethvargo/go-envconfigv1.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli/v3v3.9.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/google.golang.org/grpc/otelgrpcv0.70.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlpmetric/otlpmetricgrpcv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptracev1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracegrpcv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/metricv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk/metricv1.47.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.47.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.23.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.46.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.15.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260928230214-8a89bd6388ccgo.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.83.2go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.12go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/easyp-tech/service/apiv0.14.0sdk/go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1sdk/go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.83.2sdk/go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11sdk/go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — Go.