Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 08:30 UTC

hm-edu / openldap-exporter

This is a simple service that scrapes metrics from OpenLDAP and exports them via HTTP for Prometheus consumption.

GoMIT★ 6 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Oct 2024forkView on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

hm-edu/openldap-exporter holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (18/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

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

Ownership

Munich University of Applied SciencesOrganization · verified domain
28 followers37 public repossince Oct 2020

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/hm-edu/openldap-exporter/v2v2.9.18-3817 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
2.6/36Commit cadence38/52 weeks with commits, discounted for automation: 4 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 126 days
1.8/18Commit volume105 commits in the last year, discounted for automation: 4 of the last 100 commits human-authored, spanning 126 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year105
human_commit_share0.04
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year38
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases38 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 12 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~8.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count38
latest_release_tagv2.9.18
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release12
mean_days_between_releases8.6

Community & Adoption

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

18Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars6 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars6
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
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?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 78% of commits
9.5/13.5Contributor breadth7 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled7
top_contributor_share0.78
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution67% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance178/180 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs178
open_issues1
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs2
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 backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
10.5/25Owner reach28 followers of hm-edu
23.4/25Track record37 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers28
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginhm-edu
public_repos37
account_age_days2,174

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history38 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/hm-edu/openldap-exporter/v2
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsldap, monitoring, prometheus
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.9

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
advisories4
affected_packages1
assessed_packages32
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 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 32 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.

41Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
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.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance96 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.96
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes17,897
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
7contributors
105commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
38releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
11Releases

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.

111222212024-122025-052025-09
Major 0Minor 1Patch 10
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 08:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3v3.4.14go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.24.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/exporter-toolkitv0.19.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tomcz/gotoolsv0.19.7go.mod
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli-altsrc/v3v3.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli/v3v3.12.0go.mod
All dependencies 32

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3v3.4.14direct
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.24.1direct
Gogithub.com/prometheus/exporter-toolkitv0.19.0direct
Gogithub.com/tomcz/gotoolsv0.19.7direct
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli-altsrc/v3v3.1.0direct
Gogithub.com/urfave/cli/v3v3.12.0direct
Gogithub.com/azure/go-ntlmsspv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/beorn7/perksv1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/coreos/go-systemd/v22v22.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-asn1-ber/asn1-berv1.5.8indirect
Gogithub.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5v5.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/jpillora/backoffv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/textv0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mdlayher/socketv0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mdlayher/vsockv1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/munnerz/goautonegv0.0.0-20191010083416-a7dc8b61c822indirect
Gogithub.com/mwitkow/go-conntrackv0.0.0-20190716064945-2f068394615findirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_modelv0.6.2indirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/commonv0.70.1indirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/procfsv0.21.1indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v2v2.4.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.36.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.15.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 32 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0indirectunknown40.56.0

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 statisticsGo.