Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 05:32 UTC

hanzoai / iam

Hanzo IAM v2 — proprietary identity service on zap-proto/zip + hanzoai/orm + hanzoai/base. Clean-room, original work.

GoCustom license★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

hanzoai/iam holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (21/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts 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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Hanzo AIOrganization
38 followers339 public repossince Dec 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/hanzoai/iamv1.34.107-1,6302 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 657 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year657
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year10
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 96 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count96
latest_release_tagv1.34.107
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases1.6
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?

21At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

59Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 10/10 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs10
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.4/25Owner reach — 38 followers of hanzoai
25/25Track record — 339 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginhanzoai
public_repos339
account_age_days3,936

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 1,630 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/hanzoai/iam
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 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
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
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?

24At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
2.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
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
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated14
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive4
scorecard_aggregate3.2
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier24
security_posture_before_jurisdiction32
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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
18/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md (stub)
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.hanzo.ai/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.hanzo.ai/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.92
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6
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 — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, pkg/iam/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/464 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes47,345
source_files_sampled464
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
657commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
96releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.2 / 10
3.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 05:32 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
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 31 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/alexedwards/argon2idv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-sql-driver/mysqlv1.9.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-webauthn/webauthnv0.17.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-yamlv1.19.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5v5.3.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.1-0.20241114170450-2d3c2a9cc518go.mod
Gogithub.com/hanzoai/accountv0.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/hanzoai/authzv1.10.36go.mod
Gogithub.com/hanzoai/ormv0.6.31go.mod
Gogithub.com/jackc/pgx/v5v5.9.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/luxfi/cryptov1.20.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/luxwallet/connect/gov0.1.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/pquerna/otpv1.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasthttpv1.72.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/zap-proto/fiber/v3v3.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/zap-proto/zipv1.37.12go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0go.mod
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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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