jtprogru/srekit holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (32/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
81
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.
81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
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
0
affected_packages
0
assessed_packages
4
unassessed_packages
3
affected_by_severity
none
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 4 resolved dependencies against OSV. 3 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.
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.
Manageable file sizes — 1/71 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_language
Go
largest_source_bytes
68,497
source_files_sampled
71
oversized_source_files
1
Key facts
11GitHub stars
1contributors
217commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
42releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 7.1 / 10
7.1aggregate
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 · 2026-10-18 22:51 UTC
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
Registry
Package
Version
Relation
Go
github.com/spf13/cobra
v1.10.2
direct
Go
go.yaml.in/yaml/v3
v3.0.5
direct
Go
github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap
v1.1.0
indirect
Go
github.com/spf13/pflag
v1.0.10
indirect
PyPI
mkdocs-material
—
indirect
PyPI
mkdocs-static-i18n
—
indirect
PyPI
pymdown-extensions
—
indirect
Dependency advisories 0
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 3 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.
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.
Related records
Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with jtprogru/srekit. Read them side by side →
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.
