Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:04 UTC

garybowers / bootimus

A Complete enhanced version of the PXE server supporting booting from ISOs written in Golang and Deployable via containers or binaries.

Go · JavaScript · HTMLApache-2.0★ 337 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

garybowers/bootimus holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Security (30/100). It was last updated 6 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Gary BowersPersonal account
20 followers49 public repossince Jun 2016Google

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?

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 6 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence21/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume137 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year137
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push6
active_weeks_last_year21
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 6 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv0.1.73
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases9.4

Community & Adoption

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

61Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41/60Stars337 stars
11.9/25Forks28 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars337
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 83% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.832
How it's scored
25.4/42Issue resolution60% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance19/22 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs19
open_issues30
closed_issues46
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.605
closed_unmerged_prs3
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
9.5/25Owner reach20 followers of garybowers
24.4/25Track record49 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers20
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_logingarybowers
public_repos49
account_age_days3,673
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

69Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://bootimus.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspxe, pxe-boot, pxe-boot-windows-deployment, pxe-menu, pxe-server, pxeboot, pxelinux
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://bootimus.com
docs_sitehttps://bootimus.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
1.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities31 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate3

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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingwebsite/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, yarn.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configswebsite/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
52.7/55Manageable file sizes3/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes277,419
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files3

Key facts

337GitHub stars
11contributors
137commits, last 12 months
6days since last push
25releases
1bus factor
30open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-20 19:04 UTC

2Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 8/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-billy/v5v5.9.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3v3.4.13go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5v5.3.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/insomniacslk/dhcpv0.0.0-20260407060928-11b94ed970f2go.mod
Gogithub.com/kdomanski/iso9660v0.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/pin/tftp/v3v3.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.23.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/robfig/cron/v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/shirou/gopsutil/v3v3.24.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/willscott/go-nfsv0.0.4go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.44.0go.mod
Gogorm.io/driver/postgresv1.6.0go.mod
Gogorm.io/gormv1.31.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/glebarez/sqlitev1.11.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.50.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.36.0go.mod
npm@astrojs/node10.1.1website/package.json
npmastro6.3.7website/package.json
npmrehype-autolink-headings^7.1.0website/package.json
npmrehype-slug^6.0.0website/package.json
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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.