Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 13:47 UTC

go-simpler / musttag

🚔 Enforce field tags in (un)marshaled structs

GoMPL-2.0★ 40 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Nov 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

go-simpler/musttag holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (69/100) and lowest on Vitality (24/100). It was last updated 221 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

31
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.

31
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

go-simplerOrganization · verified domain
25 followers13 public repossince Feb 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogo-simpler.org/musttagv0.14.0-25382 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

24At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 221 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.63
days_since_last_push221
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 382 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~72.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv0.14.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release382
mean_days_between_releases72.6

Community & Adoption

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

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25.8/60Stars40 stars
9/25Forks13 forks
0/15Watchers2 watchers
Inputs used
forks13
stars40
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com, goreportcard.com, pkg.go.dev
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

64Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth12 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.795
How it's scored
33.9/42Issue resolution81% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance91/101 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs91
open_issues6
closed_issues25
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.806
closed_unmerged_prs10
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
10.2/25Owner reach25 followers of go-simpler
17.5/25Track record13 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingo-simpler
public_repos13
account_age_days1,669
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 382 days ago
20/20Version history25 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgo-simpler.org/musttag
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish382

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yaml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://go-simpler.org/musttag
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgo, linter, static-analysis, struct-tags, tool
has_wikino
homepagehttps://go-simpler.org/musttag
docs_sitehttps://go-simpler.org/musttag
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.2/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/15 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
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
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
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages4
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 4 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.

69Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history63 of 63 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yaml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance37 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, testdata/src/example.com/custom/go.mod, testdata/src/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.37
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/9 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes9,908
source_files_sampled9
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

40GitHub stars
12contributors
0commits, last 12 months
221days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
6open 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 ★ / 13 ⇿
0Stars
13Forks
15Releases

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.

03581013151322023-022024-052025-08
Major 0Minor 9Patch 6

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 13:47 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
1CI-Tests4 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
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
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogo-simpler.org/assertv0.9.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.36.0go.mod
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogo-simpler.org/assert0.9.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/tools0.36.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/mod0.27.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sync0.16.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 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/mod0.27.0indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3

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 statisticsGo.