# hanzokv/go — health index 50/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository hanzokv/go by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/hanzokv/go
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/hanzokv/go
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/hanzokv/go/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/h/hanzokv/go.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-18
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 33/100 | At Risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 31/100 | At Risk |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 41/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 89/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Hanzo KV Go SDK - Go client for Hanzo KV (Redis/Valkey compatible) |
| Classification | library |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | BSD-2-Clause |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-01-20 |
| Last push | 2026-09-15 |
| Latest release | v9.19.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 212 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/v9 | v9.22.1 | — |
| go | github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/rediscmd/v9 | v9.21.1 | — |
| go | github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/redisotel/v9 | v9.21.1 | — |
| go | github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/rediscensus/v9 | v9.21.1 | — |
| go | github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/redisprometheus/v9 | v9.21.1 | — |
| go | github.com/redis/go-redis/extra/redisotel-native/v9 | v9.22.0 | — |

## Vitality — 86/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 28.4 / 36 | 41/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 212 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 6 / 10 | 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6 |

### Release discipline — 82/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 2 releases published |
| Release recency | partial | 27 / 36 | latest release 122 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~119.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 3 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 33/100 (At Risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (BSD-2-Clause) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 31/100 (At Risk)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 39/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 6.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 70% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 64 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 16/100 (Critical)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 7.1 / 30 | 4/17 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 38/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 2.2 / 25 | 1 followers of hanzokv |
| Track record | partial | 6.2 / 25 | 4 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 50/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 50/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 41/100 (Weak)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 36/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 64 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | 8 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | no SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 20 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 63/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 62 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 13.3 / 35 | 3 affected: go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk v1.22.0 (high 7.0), go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk v1.43.0 (low 3.3), go.opentelemetry.io/otel v1.43.0 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 34 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 228 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status. 1 match(es) from contributors below the commit-weight threshold (fewer than 50 commits and under 10% of sampled commits) are recorded for review and do not affect the score.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match; 1 match(es) below the commit-weight threshold (<50 commits and <10% of commits), review-only |

## AI Readiness — 89/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 73/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | partial | 18 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md (stub) |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://redis.io/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 88 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, doctests/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 9 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 11 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3 |

### Code legibility for models — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.2 / 55 | 10/304 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples |

## Collection warnings

- go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hanzoai/kv-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/rediscmd/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hanzoai/kv-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/redisotel/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hanzoai/kv-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/rediscensus/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hanzoai/kv-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/internal/customvet' from its registry
- go package 'github.com/hanzoai/kv-go/extra/redisprometheus/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hanzoai/kv-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- go package 'github.com/redis/go-redis/extra/redisotel-native/v9' points at a different repository (https://github.com/redis/go-redis); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt