Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 21:37 UTC

haiwen / goutils

Utility libraries for Go development

GoApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2024View on GitHub ↗

haiwen/goutils holds a health index of 44 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (14/100). It was last updated 49 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Weak

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.

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)

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 46 is calibrated to 44 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

haiwenOrganization

243 followers68 public repossince Jul 2012

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/haiwen/goutils/objclient	v0.1.6	-	1	155 days ago
Go	github.com/haiwen/goutils/clusterkit	v0.1.3	-	4	57 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

45Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

36Weak

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 49 days ago
4.8/36	Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
9/18	Commit volume — 9 commits in the last year
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

commits_last_year	9
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	49
active_weeks_last_year	7

Release discipline

58Moderate

How it's scored

16.2/27	Ships releases — 6 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 235 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~87.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	6
latest_release_tag	v0.1.5
releases_from_tags	yes
days_since_latest_release	235
mean_days_between_releases	87.3

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?

14Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

4Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	0
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
5.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	4
top_contributor_share	0.462

Issue & PR responsiveness

92Excellent

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
27.9/30	PR acceptance — 13/14 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9

Inputs used

merged_prs	13
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	1
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

72Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
17.2/25	Owner reach — 243 followers of haiwen
25/25	Track record — 68 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	243
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	haiwen
public_repos	68
account_age_days	5,174

Package maintenance

92Excellent

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
12/20	Version history — 4 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/haiwen/goutils/objclient, github.com/haiwen/goutils/clusterkit
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
12/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 9 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 9 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
3/7.5	Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5	Packaging — no data
1.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	3.5

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

89Excellent

How it's scored

26.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3 v3.6.9 (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	13
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	33
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, unknown 5
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 33 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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

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	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — clusterkit/go.mod, objclient/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
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
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	clusterkit/go.mod, objclient/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	6,339
source_files_sampled	8
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

0GitHub stars

4contributors

9commits, last 12 months

49days since last push

6releases

2bus factor

0open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10

3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-09 21:36 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
6	CI-Tests	9 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9	Code-Review	Found 13/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
4	Maintained	5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
3	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	12 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 5

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3	`v3.6.9`	clusterkit/go.mod
Go	go.etcd.io/etcd/client/v3	`v3.6.9`	clusterkit/go.mod
Go	go.uber.org/zap	`v1.27.1`	clusterkit/go.mod
Go	github.com/aliyun/aliyun-oss-go-sdk	`v3.0.2+incompatible`	objclient/go.mod
Go	github.com/minio/minio-go/v7	`v7.0.79`	objclient/go.mod

All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/aliyun/aliyun-oss-go-sdk	`v3.0.2+incompatible`	direct
Go	github.com/minio/minio-go/v7	`v7.0.79`	direct
Go	go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3	`v3.6.9`	direct
Go	go.etcd.io/etcd/client/v3	`v3.6.9`	direct
Go	go.uber.org/zap	`v1.27.1`	direct
Go	github.com/coreos/go-semver	`v0.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/coreos/go-systemd/v22	`v22.5.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/dustin/go-humanize	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-ini/ini	`v1.67.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/goccy/go-json	`v0.10.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/gogo/protobuf	`v1.3.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang/protobuf	`v1.5.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2	`v2.26.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/compress	`v1.17.11`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/cpuid/v2	`v2.2.8`	indirect
Go	github.com/minio/md5-simd	`v1.1.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rs/xid	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	go.etcd.io/etcd/api/v3	`v3.6.9`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/multierr	`v1.11.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.55.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.45.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.37.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.7.0`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api	`v0.0.0-20251202230838-ff82c1b0f217`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc	`v0.0.0-20251202230838-ff82c1b0f217`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/grpc	`v1.79.3`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.10`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/check.v1	`v0.0.0-20161208181325-20d25e280405`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 33 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
google.golang.org/grpc	`v1.79.3`	indirect	critical	5	`1.85.0-dev.0.20260825072537-93e31b48545e`
go.etcd.io/etcd/client/pkg/v3	`v3.6.9`	direct	unknown	1	`3.7.1`
github.com/klauspost/compress	`v1.17.11`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.18.7`
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	indirect	unknown	4	`0.56.0`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.55.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.27.0-rc.3`
golang.org/x/text	`v0.37.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.39.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records