Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-29 21:23 UTC

invenlore / proto

Proto files

Makefile · GoMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Feb 2025View on GitHub ↗

invenlore/proto holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (69/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 9 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

invenloreOrganization
2 followers5 public repossince Feb 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/invenlore/protov1.4.10-289 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 9 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
14.3/18Commit volume38 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year38
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push9
active_weeks_last_year9

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases18 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~19.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv1.4.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases19.7
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
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?

38Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution0% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues1
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
3.4/25Owner reach2 followers of invenlore
8.6/25Track record5 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logininvenlore
public_repos5
account_age_days527
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 9 days ago
20/20Version history28 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/invenlore/proto
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish9

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

35Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
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
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://invenlore.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsprotobuf, protocol-buffers, microservices, microservices-architecture
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://invenlore.io
docs_sitehttps://invenlore.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages12
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 12 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.

40Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history48 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.98
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 49
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeMakefile without a type-check config
53.2/55Manageable file sizes1/30 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageMakefile
largest_source_bytes65,776
source_files_sampled30
oversized_source_files1
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)proto/common/v1/context.proto, proto/common/v1/errors.proto, proto/common/v1/openapi.proto, proto/common/v1/pagination.proto, proto/common/v1/utils.proto, proto/identity/v1/internal_service.proto, proto/identity/v1/messages.proto, proto/identity/v1/public_service.proto, proto/media/v1/events.proto, proto/media/v1/messages.proto, proto/media/v1/service.proto, proto/search/v1/messages.proto, proto/search/v1/service.proto, proto/wiki/v1/events.proto, proto/wiki/v1/messages.proto, proto/wiki/v1/read_service.proto, proto/wiki/v1/write_service.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/annotations.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/field_behavior.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/http.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/httpbody.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/any.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/api.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/compiler/plugin.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/cpp_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/duration.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/empty.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/field_mask.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/go_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/java_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/source_context.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/struct.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/type.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/wrappers.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/rpc/error_details.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/rpc/status.proto, vendor.protobuf/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, vendor.protobuf/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesproto/common/v1/context.proto, proto/common/v1/errors.proto, proto/common/v1/openapi.proto, proto/common/v1/pagination.proto, proto/common/v1/utils.proto, proto/identity/v1/internal_service.proto, proto/identity/v1/messages.proto, proto/identity/v1/public_service.proto, proto/media/v1/events.proto, proto/media/v1/messages.proto, proto/media/v1/service.proto, proto/search/v1/messages.proto, proto/search/v1/service.proto, proto/wiki/v1/events.proto, proto/wiki/v1/messages.proto, proto/wiki/v1/read_service.proto, proto/wiki/v1/write_service.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/annotations.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/field_behavior.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/http.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/api/httpbody.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/any.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/api.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/compiler/plugin.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/cpp_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/duration.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/empty.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/field_mask.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/go_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/java_features.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/source_context.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/struct.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/type.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/protobuf/wrappers.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/rpc/error_details.proto, vendor.protobuf/google/rpc/status.proto, vendor.protobuf/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, vendor.protobuf/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
38commits, last 12 months
9days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-29 21:22 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
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
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.29.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/apiv0.0.0-20260715232425-e75dac1f907dgo.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260715232425-e75dac1f907dgo.mod
All dependencies 12

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 7 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.29.0direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/apiv0.0.0-20260715232425-e75dac1f907ddirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260715232425-e75dac1f907ddirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11direct
Gogithub.com/kr/textv0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rogpeppe/go-internalv1.14.1indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc/cmd/protoc-gen-go-grpcv1.6.2indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 12 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 statisticsGo.