Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 22:16 UTC

jrossi / gismo

GoNo license detected★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jul 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

jrossi/gismo holds a health index of 33 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (90/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 390 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

33
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

33
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 38 is calibrated to 33 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jeremy RossiPersonal account
96 followers207 public repossince Feb 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/jrossi/gismov0.5.0-15408 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

28At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 390 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push390
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases7 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 411 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release411
mean_days_between_releases3

Community & Adoption

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

19Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 96% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.959
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
14.3/25Owner reach96 followers of jrossi
25/25Track record207 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers96
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginjrossi
public_repos207
account_age_days6,412
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 408 days ago
20/20Version history15 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/jrossi/gismo
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish408

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://jeremyrossi.com/ccfeedback/docs/
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://jeremyrossi.com/ccfeedback/docs/
docs_sitehttps://jeremyrossi.com/ccfeedback/docs/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
manifestsdocs/package.json, go.mod, test-duckdb/go.mod
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history94 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.94
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,778
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapdocs/testable/go.mod, examples/test/go.mod, go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice89 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.89
toolchain_manifestsdocs/testable/go.mod, examples/test/go.mod, go.mod, pkg/linters/rust/testdata/Cargo.toml, test-duckdb/go.mod, tests/examples/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/173 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes35,222
source_files_sampled173
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)pkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/style_violations.proto, pkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/syntax_error.proto, pkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/valid.proto, pkg/proto/gismo/v1/codesitter.proto, pkg/proto/gismo/v1/knowledge.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filespkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/style_violations.proto, pkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/syntax_error.proto, pkg/linters/protobuf/testdata/valid.proto, pkg/proto/gismo/v1/codesitter.proto, pkg/proto/gismo/v1/knowledge.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
2contributors
0commits, last 12 months
390days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/jrossi/gismo: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-18T22:16:24Z. Please include `AF14:24887F:10BA639:102BC67:6AADB836` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gobuf.build/gen/go/bufbuild/protovalidate/protocolbuffers/gov1.36.7-20250717185734-6c6e0d3c608e.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/anush008/fastembed-gov1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.9.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-jsonv0.10.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/kaptinlin/jsonschemav0.4.6go.mod
Gogithub.com/magefile/magev1.15.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/marcboeker/go-duckdbv1.8.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-sqlite3v1.14.30go.mod
Gogithub.com/smacker/go-tree-sitterv0.0.0-20240827094217-dd81d9e9be82go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.10.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/teekennedy/goldmark-markdownv0.5.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/yuin/goldmarkv1.7.12go.mod
Gogithub.com/zricethezav/gitleaks/v8v8.28.0go.mod
Gogo.abhg.dev/goldmark/frontmatterv0.2.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.34.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.74.2go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.7go.mod
Gogithub.com/marcboeker/go-duckdbv1.8.5test-duckdb/go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.