Public recordModerate
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 21:11 UTC
enr / zipp
Zip utilities
enr/zipp holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 58 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
56
overall / 100Software 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.
56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Enrico ComitiPersonal account
33 followers53 public repossince Nov 2009
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/enr/zipp | v0.8.2 | - | 16 | 60 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
54
Development activity
39Weak
How it's scored
| 18/36 | Push recency — last push 58 days ago |
| 3.5/36 | Commit cadence — 5/52 weeks with commits |
| 12.9/18 | Commit volume — 26 commits in the last year |
| 5/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 26 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 58 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 5 |
Release discipline
76Good
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 16 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 60 days ago |
| 12.6/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~321.9 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 16 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.8.2 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 60 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 321.9 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
24
Popularity & adoption
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 1 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 0 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 1 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 0 |
| stars | 1 |
| watchers | 1 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 0/18 | 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 | 4 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | github.com, shields.io |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
59
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
13Critical
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 0.9/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 96% of commits |
| 2.7/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 2 contributors |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 2 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.959 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
83Excellent
How it's scored
| 42/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 30/30 | PR acceptance — 3/3 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 3 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 1 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| prs_decided_30d | 0 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 1 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 0 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
57Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 11/25 | Owner reach — 33 followers of enr |
| 24.6/25 | Track record — 53 public repos, account ~16 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 33 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | enr |
| public_repos | 53 |
| account_age_days | 6,144 |
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 60 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 16 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | github.com/enr/zipp |
| ecosystems | go |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 60 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
76
Engineering practices
70Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 4 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 16/16 | Linter config — .flake8, .golangci.yml |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 6.4/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | yes |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
85Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 0/15 | Documentation / homepage site |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | golang-application, zip, go, cli-app, hacktoberfest |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | — |
| docs_site | — |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
44
Security posture
30At Risk
How it's scored
| 6/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/2.5 | Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no 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 |
| 3.8/7.5 | Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0.5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 6.8/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 3 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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 | 1 |
| affected_packages | 1 |
| assessed_packages | 38 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | unknown 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 38 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.
78
Agent context & guidance
49Weak
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 4.3/40 | Legible commit history — 8 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.08 |
| agent_instruction_files | vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 2,406 |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
83Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — vendor/charm.land/bubbletea/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/charm.land/huh/v2/Makefile, vendor/charm.land/lipgloss/v2/Taskfile.yaml |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 11/11 | Lint / format config — .flake8, .golangci.yml |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — Go (statically typed) |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 10/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — 6 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 1/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | go.sum |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | vendor/charm.land/bubbletea/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/charm.land/huh/v2/Makefile, vendor/charm.land/lipgloss/v2/Taskfile.yaml |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | yes |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0.06 |
| toolchain_manifests | go.mod |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 55/55 | Manageable file sizes — 0/14 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 5,396 |
| source_files_sampled | 14 |
| oversized_source_files | 0 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — example |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | example |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
1GitHub stars
2contributors
26commits, last 12 months
58days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate
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).
| 8 | Binary-Artifacts | binaries present in source code |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0 | CI-Tests | 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Contributors | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 5 | Maintained | 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 1 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| 0 | Signed-Releases | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 9 | Vulnerabilities | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 8
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | charm.land/huh/v2 | v2.0.3 | go.mod |
| Go | charm.land/lipgloss/v2 | v2.0.3 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/enr/go-files | v0.3.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/enr/qac | v0.5.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/enr/zipext | v0.5.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/mattn/go-isatty | v0.0.22 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/urfave/cli | v1.22.17 | go.mod |
| Go | gopkg.in/yaml.v3 | v3.0.1 | go.mod |
All dependencies 38
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | charm.land/huh/v2 | v2.0.3 | direct |
| Go | charm.land/lipgloss/v2 | v2.0.3 | direct |
| Go | github.com/enr/go-files | v0.3.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/enr/qac | v0.5.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/enr/zipext | v0.5.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/mattn/go-isatty | v0.0.22 | direct |
| Go | github.com/urfave/cli | v1.22.17 | direct |
| Go | gopkg.in/yaml.v3 | v3.0.1 | direct |
| Go | charm.land/bubbles/v2 | v2.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | charm.land/bubbletea/v2 | v2.0.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/atotto/clipboard | v0.1.4 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/catppuccin/go | v0.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/colorprofile | v0.4.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/ultraviolet | v0.0.0-20260205113103-524a6607adb8 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/ansi | v0.11.7 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/ordered | v0.1.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/strings | v0.0.0-20240722160745-212f7b056ed0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/term | v0.2.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/termios | v0.1.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/charmbracelet/x/windows | v0.2.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth | v0.11.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2 | v2.7.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v2 | v2.0.7 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/dustin/go-humanize | v1.0.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/enr/runcmd | v0.6.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/extemporalgenome/slug | v0.0.0-20150414033109-0320c85e32e0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorful | v1.4.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mattn/go-runewidth | v0.0.23 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir | v1.1.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/hashstructure/v2 | v2.0.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/muesli/cancelreader | v0.2.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/rivo/uniseg | v0.4.7 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2 | v2.1.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/subosito/gotenv | v1.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/xo/terminfo | v0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41e | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sync | v0.20.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sys | v0.45.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/text | v0.37.0 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 1
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 38 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.
| Package | Version | Relation | Severity | Advisories | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| golang.org/x/text | v0.37.0 | indirect | unknown | 1 | 0.39.0 |
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.
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.