Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 03:14 UTC

flamego / flamego

The modular Go framework for composable systems

GoMIT★ 621 stars⑂ 40 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined

flamego/flamego holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Security (61/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

FlamegoOrganization · verified domain
27 followers20 public repossince Apr 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/flamego/flamegov1.14.0-3056 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 18 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
12.2/18Commit volume — 22 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year22
human_commit_share0.66
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year7

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 56 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~45 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv1.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release56
mean_days_between_releases45
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?

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.3/60Stars — 621 stars
13.3/25Forks — 40 forks
5.6/15Watchers — 11 watchers
Inputs used
forks40
stars621
watchers11
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges5
has_contributingyes
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?

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.856
How it's scored
34.4/42Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
28.3/30PR acceptance — 154/163 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs154
open_issues8
closed_issues36
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.818
closed_unmerged_prs9
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
20/20Verified domain
10.4/25Owner reach — 27 followers of flamego
20.6/25Track record — 20 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers27
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginflamego
public_repos20
account_age_days1,997

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 56 days ago
20/20Version history — 30 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/flamego/flamego
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish56

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://flamego.dev
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgo, dependency-injection, web-framework, flamego
has_wikino
homepagehttps://flamego.dev
docs_sitehttps://flamego.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

61Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 13 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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_packages26
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 26 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://flamego.dev/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 58 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://flamego.dev/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.879
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — docs/go.mod, go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 28 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifestsdocs/go.mod, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.28
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.6/55Manageable file sizes — 1/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes100,670
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

621GitHub stars
8contributors
22commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
8open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 40 ⇿
0Stars
40Forks
28Releases

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.

0102030404032021-052023-112026-05
Major 1Minor 12Patch 14

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.1 / 10
5.1aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 03:14 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
5CI-Tests13 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gocharm.land/log/v2v2.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/participle/v2v2.1.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
All dependencies 26

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 22 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocharm.land/log/v2v2.0.0direct
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/participle/v2v2.1.4direct
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1direct
Gocharm.land/lipgloss/v2v2.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/colorprofilev0.4.2indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/ultravioletv0.0.0-20251205161215-1948445e3318indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/ansiv0.11.6indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termiosv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/windowsv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/displaywidthv0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2v2.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logfmt/logfmtv0.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/imfing/hextrav0.12.3indirect
Gogithub.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorfulv1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.19indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/cancelreaderv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7indirect
Gogithub.com/xo/terminfov0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20231006140011-7918f672742dindirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.18.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.42.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 26 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/sysv0.42.0indirectunknown10.44.0

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 — Go.