Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 14:07 UTC

in-toto / attestation

in-toto Attestation Framework

RustCustom license★ 369 stars⑂ 124 forkssince Apr 2021View on GitHub ↗

#software-supply-chain-security #attestation

in-toto/attestation holds a health index of 92 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (61/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

in-totoOrganization

228 followers43 public repossince Oct 2016

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	Tags
Go	github.com/in-toto/attestation	v1.2.0	-	7	163 days ago	—
crates.io	in_toto_attestation	0.1.0	325	1	365 days ago	—
PyPI	in-toto-attestation	0.9.3	44,040	4	989 days ago	in-toto security slsa software-supply-chain

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
24.2/36	Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 124 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	124
human_commit_share	0.59
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	35

Release discipline

74Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 7 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 163 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~182 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	7
latest_release_tag	v1.2.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	163
mean_days_between_releases	182

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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

66Good

How it's scored

41.6/60	Stars — 369 stars
17.4/25	Forks — 124 forks
7/15	Watchers — 19 watchers

Inputs used

forks	124
stars	369
watchers	19
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

44Weak

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
16.9/22.5	License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

78Good

How it's scored

62/80	Monthly downloads — 44,365 downloads/month across crates, go, pypi
0/20	Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem

Inputs used

packages	github.com/in-toto/attestation, in_toto_attestation, in-toto-attestation
dependents	—
ecosystems	crates, go, pypi
total_downloads	2,862
monthly_downloads	44,365
unverified_packages_excluded	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

77Good

How it's scored

36/54	Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 23% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 37 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 61 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	3
contributors_sampled	37
top_contributor_share	0.23

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good

How it's scored

26.1/42	Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
26.5/30	PR acceptance — 366/415 decided PRs merged
6.5/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	366
open_issues	59
closed_issues	97
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.622
closed_unmerged_prs	49
first_time_authors_30d	2
first_time_prs_merged_30d	1
first_time_prs_decided_30d	2

Ownership & stewardship

71Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
17/25	Owner reach — 228 followers of in-toto
24/25	Track record — 43 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	228
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	in-toto
public_repos	43
account_age_days	3,602

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on crates, go, pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 163 days ago
20/20	Version history — 7 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/in-toto/attestation, in_toto_attestation, in-toto-attestation
ecosystems	crates, go, pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	163

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://in-toto.io
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	software-supply-chain-security, attestation
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	https://in-toto.io
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

69Good

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 61 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	6.9

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	130
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 130 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

77Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 50 of 59 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.847
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

90Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, images/Makefile, protos/Makefile, python/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — python/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11	Static type checking — Rust (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 40 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock, go.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, images/Makefile, protos/Makefile, python/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod, rust/Cargo.toml
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.4

Code legibility for models

94Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Rust (statically typed)
48.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 13/112 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Rust
largest_source_bytes	289,335
source_files_sampled	112
oversized_source_files	13

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/link/v0/link.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v0.1/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v0.2/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v1/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/reference/v0/reference.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/release/v0.1/release.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/release/v0.2/release.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/scai/v0/scai.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/svr/v0.1/svr.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/test_result/v0/test_result.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vsa/v0/vsa.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vsa/v1/vsa.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vulns/v0.1/vulns.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vulns/v0.2/vulns.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/v1/resource_descriptor.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/v1/statement.proto
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/link/v0/link.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v0.1/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v0.2/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/provenance/v1/provenance.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/reference/v0/reference.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/release/v0.1/release.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/release/v0.2/release.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/scai/v0/scai.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/svr/v0.1/svr.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/test_result/v0/test_result.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vsa/v0/vsa.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vsa/v1/vsa.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vulns/v0.1/vulns.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/predicates/vulns/v0.2/vulns.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/v1/resource_descriptor.proto, protos/in_toto_attestation/v1/statement.proto
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

369GitHub stars

37contributors

124commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

7releases

3bus factor

59open issues

crates.io, Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 124 ⇿

0Stars

124Forks

7Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 2Patch 4

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10

6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 14:07 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
10	CI-Tests	16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 61 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
9	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
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
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.1`	go.mod
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.12`	go.mod
npm	markdownlint-cli	`^0.49.1`	package.json
PyPI	protobuf	`—`	python/pyproject.toml
crates.io	hex	`0.4.3`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	protobuf	`3.7.2`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	protobuf-json-mapping	`3.7.2`	rust/Cargo.toml
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.12`	rust/Cargo.toml

All dependencies 131

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 121 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
crates.io	hex	`0.4.3`	direct
crates.io	protobuf	`3.7.2`	direct
crates.io	protobuf-json-mapping	`3.7.2`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`1.0.69`	direct
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.12`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.1`	direct
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.12`	direct
npm	markdownlint-cli	`0.49.1`	direct
PyPI	protobuf	`—`	direct
PyPI	protobuf	`5.29.6`	direct
crates.io	aho-corasick	`1.1.3`	indirect
crates.io	anyhow	`1.0.98`	indirect
crates.io	bitflags	`2.9.1`	indirect
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.0`	indirect
crates.io	either	`1.15.0`	indirect
crates.io	equivalent	`1.0.2`	indirect
crates.io	errno	`0.3.12`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.3.0`	indirect
crates.io	getrandom	`0.3.3`	indirect
crates.io	hashbrown	`0.15.3`	indirect
crates.io	home	`0.5.11`	indirect
crates.io	indexmap	`2.9.0`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.172`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.4.15`	indirect
crates.io	linux-raw-sys	`0.9.4`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.27`	indirect
crates.io	memchr	`2.7.4`	indirect
crates.io	once_cell	`1.21.3`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.95`	indirect
crates.io	protobuf-codegen	`3.7.2`	indirect
crates.io	protobuf-parse	`3.7.2`	indirect
crates.io	protobuf-support	`3.7.2`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.40`	indirect
crates.io	r-efi	`5.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	regex	`1.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	regex-automata	`0.4.9`	indirect
crates.io	regex-syntax	`0.8.5`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`0.38.44`	indirect
crates.io	rustix	`1.0.7`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.101`	indirect
crates.io	tempfile	`3.20.0`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`1.0.69`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`2.0.12`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.14.2+wasi-0.2.4`	indirect
crates.io	which	`4.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.59.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	wit-bindgen-rt	`0.39.0`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.5`	indirect
npm	@types/debug	`4.1.13`	indirect
npm	@types/katex	`0.16.8`	indirect
npm	@types/ms	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	@types/unist	`2.0.11`	indirect
npm	ansi-regex	`6.2.2`	indirect
npm	argparse	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`5.0.9`	indirect
npm	character-entities	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	character-entities-legacy	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	character-reference-invalid	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	commander	`15.0.0`	indirect
npm	commander	`8.3.0`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	decode-named-character-reference	`1.3.0`	indirect
npm	deep-extend	`0.6.0`	indirect
npm	dequal	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	devlop	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	entities	`4.5.0`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	get-east-asian-width	`1.6.0`	indirect
npm	ignore	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	ini	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	is-alphabetical	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	is-alphanumerical	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	is-decimal	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	is-hexadecimal	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	js-yaml	`5.2.2`	indirect
npm	jsonc-parser	`3.3.1`	indirect
npm	jsonpointer	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	katex	`0.16.47`	indirect
npm	linkify-it	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	markdown-it	`14.3.0`	indirect
npm	markdownlint	`0.41.1`	indirect
npm	mdurl	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	micromark	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	micromark-core-commonmark	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	micromark-extension-directive	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	micromark-extension-gfm-autolink-literal	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	micromark-extension-gfm-footnote	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	micromark-extension-gfm-table	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-extension-math	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	micromark-factory-destination	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-factory-label	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-factory-space	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-factory-title	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-factory-whitespace	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-character	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-chunked	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-classify-character	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-combine-extensions	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-decode-numeric-character-reference	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-encode	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-html-tag-name	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-normalize-identifier	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-resolve-all	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-sanitize-uri	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-subtokenize	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-symbol	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	micromark-util-types	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`10.2.5`	indirect
npm	minimist	`1.2.8`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	parse-entities	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	punycode.js	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	run-con	`1.3.3`	indirect
npm	smol-toml	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	string-width	`8.2.1`	indirect
npm	strip-ansi	`7.2.0`	indirect
npm	strip-json-comments	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	uc.micro	`2.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 130 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
anyhow	`1.0.98`	indirect	unknown	1	`1.0.103`

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, crates.io, PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records