essentialkaos / ek
Auxiliary packages for Go
essentialkaos/ek holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on Security (45/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
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.
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.
Ownership
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/essentialkaos/ek/v14 | v14.4.0 | - | 16 | 4 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
Development activity
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 4 days ago |
| 32.5/36 | Commit cadence — 47/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 430 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 430 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 4 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 47 |
Release discipline
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 100 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 4 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~7.3 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 100 |
| latest_release_tag | v14.4.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 4 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 7.3 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
Popularity & adoption
How it's scored
| 27.3/60 | Stars — 49 stars |
| 5/25 | Forks — 5 forks |
| 2.7/15 | Watchers — 4 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 5 |
| stars | 49 |
| watchers | 4 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 18/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 6.3/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | yes |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | yes |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 0.6/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 98% of commits |
| 4.1/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 3 contributors |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 3 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.975 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
How it's scored
| 42/42 | Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed |
| 28.1/30 | PR acceptance — 638/680 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 638 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 2 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 1 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 42 |
| first_time_authors_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | — |
Ownership & stewardship
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 9/25 | Owner reach — 17 followers of essentialkaos |
| 25/25 | Track record — 147 public repos, account ~14 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 17 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | essentialkaos |
| public_repos | 147 |
| account_age_days | 5,270 |
Package maintenance
How it's scored
| 25/25 | Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go |
| 35/35 | Publish recency — latest publish 4 days ago |
| 20/20 | Version history — 16 published versions |
| 20/20 | Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked |
Inputs used
| packages | github.com/essentialkaos/ek/v14 |
| ecosystems | go |
| any_deprecated | no |
| min_days_since_publish | 4 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
Engineering practices
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 3 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://kaos.sh/g/ek.v14 |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 3 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | golang, auxiliary, golang-package |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://kaos.sh/g/ek.v14 |
| docs_site | https://kaos.sh/g/ek.v14 |
| 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?
Security posture
High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected
Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.
How jurisdiction exposure is assessedHow it's scored
| 30/30 | Security policy (SECURITY.md) |
| 25/25 | Dependabot config |
| 0/25 | Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| 20/20 | CodeQL workflow |
Inputs used
| source | file_signals |
| lockfiles | go.sum |
| manifests | go.mod |
| has_codeql_workflow | yes |
| has_security_policy | yes |
| has_dependabot_config | yes |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_cap | 34 |
| high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier | 75 |
| security_posture_after_multiplier | 75 |
| security_posture_before_jurisdiction | 100 |
Dependency advisories
How it's scored
| 26.6/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.54.0 (unknown) |
| 0/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| 40/40 | No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 1 |
| affected_packages | 1 |
| assessed_packages | 8 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | unknown 1 |
| direct_affected_packages | 1 |
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.
Agent context & guidance
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 | — |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — Go (statically typed) |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — lockfile |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no data |
| 5/8 | Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data |
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 | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 54.9/55 | Manageable file sizes — 1/388 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 77,923 |
| source_files_sampled | 388 |
| oversized_source_files | 1 |
Key facts
Data collection warnings
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks
More detail
Direct dependencies 5
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/check | v1.4.1 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/depsy | v1.3.1 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/go-linenoise/v3 | v3.7.0 | go.mod |
| Go | golang.org/x/crypto | v0.54.0 | go.mod |
| Go | golang.org/x/sys | v0.47.0 | go.mod |
All dependencies 8
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/check | v1.4.1 | direct |
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/depsy | v1.3.1 | direct |
| Go | github.com/essentialkaos/go-linenoise/v3 | v3.7.0 | direct |
| Go | golang.org/x/crypto | v0.54.0 | direct |
| Go | golang.org/x/sys | v0.47.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/kr/pretty | v0.3.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/kr/text | v0.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal | v1.15.0 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 1
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 8 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.
| Package | Version | Relation | Severity | Advisories | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| golang.org/x/crypto | v0.54.0 | direct | unknown | 1 | — |
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.