Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 15:53 UTC

grafana / xk6-ssh

Client extension for interacting with a host over SSH as part of your k6 test.

Go · MakefileApache-2.0★ 14 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

grafana/xk6-ssh holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on Security (45/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
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.

34
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Grafana LabsOrganization · verified domain
7,374 followers588 public repossince Apr 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/grafana/xk6-sshv0.2.3-1056 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
17.3/36Commit cadence — 25/52 weeks with commits
16/18Commit volume — 59 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year59
human_commit_share0.38
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year25
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 55 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~171 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv0.2.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release55
mean_days_between_releases171

Community & Adoption

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

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars — 14 stars
6.5/25Forks — 7 forks
11.9/15Watchers — 137 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars14
watchers137
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 42% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 12 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled12
top_contributor_share0.423
How it's scored
34.4/42Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
24.7/30PR acceptance — 89/108 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs89
open_issues2
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.818
closed_unmerged_prs19
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
25/25Owner reach — 7,374 followers of grafana
25/25Track record — 588 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers7,374
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingrafana
public_repos588
account_age_days4,556

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 — 10 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/grafana/xk6-ssh
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish56

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsxk6, ssh, ssh-client, k6
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.9
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier50
security_posture_after_multiplier40
security_posture_before_jurisdiction79
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.55.0 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories3
affected_packages1
assessed_packages40
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 40 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 29 of 38 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.763
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 18 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.18
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes2,547
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

14GitHub stars
12contributors
59commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
10releases
2bus factor
2open 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 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
9Releases

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.

1234567712021-042023-122026-07
Major 0Minor 2Patch 7

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.9 / 10
7.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-26 15:53 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0go.mod
Gogo.k6.io/k6/v2v2.2.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.55.0go.mod
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0direct
Gogo.k6.io/k6/v2v2.2.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.55.0direct
Gogithub.com/cenkalti/backoff/v5v5.0.3indirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/dlclark/regexp2/v2v2.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/evanw/esbuildv0.28.1indirect
Gogithub.com/fatih/colorv1.19.0indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.4.9indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/logrv1.4.4indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/stdrv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-sourcemap/sourcemapv2.1.4+incompatibleindirect
Gogithub.com/google/pprofv0.0.0-20260115054156-294ebfa9ad83indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/grafana/sobekv0.0.0-20260727154728-7781506a890findirect
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.29.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.15indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24indirect
Gogithub.com/mstoykov/atlasv0.0.0-20220811071828-388f114305ddindirect
Gogithub.com/serenize/snakerv0.0.0-20201027110005-a7ad2135616eindirect
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.9.3indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdkv1.2.1indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptracev1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracegrpcv1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracehttpv1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/metricv1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.45.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/proto/otlpv1.11.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.41.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.15.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/apiv0.0.0-20260803160001-6ac0973c030dindirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260803160001-6ac0973c030dindirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.83.2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11indirect
Gogopkg.in/guregu/null.v3v3.5.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/tomb.v1v1.0.0-20141024135613-dd632973f1e7indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 40 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/cryptov0.55.0directunknown30.56.0

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.