Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 17:05 UTC

hcloud-talos / terraform-hcloud-talos

This repository contains a Terraform module for creating a Kubernetes cluster with Talos in the Hetzner Cloud.

HCLMIT★ 347 stars⑂ 64 forkssince Mar 2024View on GitHub ↗

hcloud-talos/terraform-hcloud-talos holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (54/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

86
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

hcloud-talosOrganization
15 followers2 public repossince Mar 2024

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume312 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year312
human_commit_share0.1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.4.13
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases7
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?

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.2/60Stars347 stars
15/25Forks64 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks64
stars347
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 90% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.895
How it's scored
34.9/42Issue resolution83% of issues closed
27.9/30PR acceptance446/480 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs446
open_issues8
closed_issues39
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.83
closed_unmerged_prs34
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
8.7/25Owner reach15 followers of hcloud-talos
8.2/25Track record2 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers15
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhcloud-talos
public_repos2
account_age_days859
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/hcloud-talos/talos
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshcloud, hetzner, hetzner-cloud, kubernetes, talos, talos-linux, talosctl, terraform
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/hcloud-talos/talos
docs_sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/hcloud-talos/talos
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories3
affected_packages2
assessed_packages86
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 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 86 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes4,466
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance90 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.9
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHCL without a type-check config
13.8/55Manageable file sizes3/4 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHCL
largest_source_bytes3,019,751
source_files_sampled4
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
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

347GitHub stars
18contributors
312commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
8open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 64 ⇿
0Stars
64Forks
95Releases

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.

01325385063756432024-052025-052026-06
Major 1Minor 19Patch 74

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 17:04 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-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
0Code-ReviewFound 0/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 1 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
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 86

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 86 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/code-frame7.24.7indirect
npm@babel/helper-validator-identifier7.24.7indirect
npm@babel/highlight7.24.7indirect
npm@commitlint/cli21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/config-conventional21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/config-validator21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/ensure21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/execute-rule21.0.1indirect
npm@commitlint/format21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/is-ignored21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/lint21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/load21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/message21.0.2indirect
npm@commitlint/parse21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/read21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/resolve-extends21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/rules21.1.0indirect
npm@commitlint/to-lines21.0.1indirect
npm@commitlint/top-level21.0.2indirect
npm@commitlint/types21.1.0indirect
npm@conventional-changelog/git-client2.6.0indirect
npm@simple-libs/child-process-utils1.0.2indirect
npm@simple-libs/stream-utils1.2.0indirect
npmajv8.16.0indirect
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles3.2.1indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.3indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmarray-ify1.0.0indirect
npmcallsites3.1.0indirect
npmchalk2.4.2indirect
npmcliui9.0.1indirect
npmcolor-convert1.9.3indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.3indirect
npmcompare-func2.0.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-angular8.2.0indirect
npmconventional-changelog-conventionalcommits9.2.0indirect
npmconventional-commits-parser6.3.0indirect
npmcosmiconfig9.0.1indirect
npmcosmiconfig-typescript-loader6.1.0indirect
npmdot-prop5.3.0indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmenv-paths2.2.1indirect
npmerror-ex1.3.2indirect
npmes-toolkit1.46.1indirect
npmescalade3.1.2indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmescape-string-regexp1.0.5indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmget-east-asian-width1.6.0indirect
npmgit-raw-commits5.0.1indirect
npmglobal-directory5.0.0indirect
npmhas-flag3.0.0indirect
npmimport-fresh3.3.0indirect
npmini6.0.0indirect
npmis-arrayish0.2.1indirect
npmis-obj2.0.0indirect
npmis-plain-obj4.1.0indirect
npmjiti2.4.1indirect
npmjs-tokens4.0.0indirect
npmjs-yaml4.1.1indirect
npmjson-parse-even-better-errors2.3.1indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse1.0.0indirect
npmlines-and-columns1.2.4indirect
npmmeow13.2.0indirect
npmparent-module1.0.1indirect
npmparse-json5.2.0indirect
npmpicocolors1.0.1indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmprettier3.9.6indirect
npmpunycode2.3.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmresolve-from4.0.0indirect
npmresolve-from5.0.0indirect
npmsemver7.6.2indirect
npmsemver7.7.4indirect
npmstring-width7.2.0indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.2.0indirect
npmsupports-color5.5.0indirect
npmtinyexec1.0.1indirect
npmuri-js4.4.1indirect
npmwrap-ansi9.0.2indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs18.0.0indirect
npmyargs-parser22.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 86 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
js-yaml4.1.1indirecthigh24.3.0
ajv8.16.0indirectmoderate18.18.0

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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