Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-05 15:39 UTC

kode4food / toe

Thom's Own Editor

GoMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

kode4food/toe holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Thomas BradfordPersonal account
170 followers30 public repossince Apr 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/kode4food/toev0.4.10-641 day ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence — 16/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 497 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year497
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year16

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 21 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv0.4.10
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases3.4
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 1/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.1/25Owner reach — 170 followers of kode4food
22.9/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers170
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkode4food
public_repos30
account_age_days6,395
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 64 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/kode4food/toe
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kode4food.github.io/toe/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgolang, lsp, modal-editor, syntax-highlighting, terminal, text-editor, tui
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://kode4food.github.io/toe/
docs_sitehttps://kode4food.github.io/toe/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages58
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 58 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — 0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes43,509
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsdocs/go.mod, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/598 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes58,054
source_files_sampled598
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2GitHub stars
1contributors
497commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-10-05 15:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/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
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 30
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gocharm.land/bubbletea/v2v2.0.9go.mod
Gogithub.com/BurntSushi/tomlv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2v2.27.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/colorprofilev0.4.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/ultravioletv0.0.0-20260906173415-0277a179edd9go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/ansiv0.11.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/vtv0.0.0-20260906004030-3986e9119cf9go.mod
Gogithub.com/creack/ptyv1.1.24go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.29go.mod
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.8.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7go.mod
Gogithub.com/rjeczalik/notifyv0.9.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/sabhiram/go-gitignorev0.0.0-20210923224102-525f6e181f06go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-hclv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-makev1.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-tomlv0.7.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-yamlv0.7.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitterv0.25.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-bashv0.25.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cssv0.25.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-diffv0.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-gov0.25.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-htmlv0.23.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-javascriptv0.25.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-typescriptv0.23.2go.mod
Gogo.lsp.dev/jsonrpc2v1.0.1go.mod
Gogo.lsp.dev/protocolv1.0.1go.mod
Gogo.lsp.dev/uriv1.0.1go.mod
All dependencies 58

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 28 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocharm.land/bubbletea/v2v2.0.9direct
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/chroma/v2v2.27.0direct
Gogithub.com/burntsushi/tomlv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/colorprofilev0.4.3direct
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/ultravioletv0.0.0-20260906173415-0277a179edd9direct
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/vtv0.0.0-20260906004030-3986e9119cf9direct
Gogithub.com/creack/ptyv1.1.24direct
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.29direct
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.8.0direct
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0direct
Gogithub.com/rivo/unisegv0.4.7direct
Gogithub.com/rjeczalik/notifyv0.9.3direct
Gogithub.com/sabhiram/go-gitignorev0.0.0-20210923224102-525f6e181f06direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-hclv1.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-makev1.1.1direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-tomlv0.7.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-yamlv0.7.2direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/go-tree-sitterv0.25.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-bashv0.25.1direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-cssv0.25.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-gov0.25.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-htmlv0.23.2direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-javascriptv0.25.0direct
Gogithub.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-typescriptv0.23.2direct
Gogo.lsp.dev/jsonrpc2v1.0.1direct
Gogo.lsp.dev/protocolv1.0.1direct
Gogo.lsp.dev/uriv1.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/alex-shpak/hugo-bookv0.14.0indirect
Gogithub.com/aymanbagabas/go-udiffv0.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/goldenv0.0.0-20250806222409-83e3a29d542findirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/orderedv0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termiosv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/windowsv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/displaywidthv0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2v2.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/dlclark/regexp2/v2v2.7.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-json-experiment/jsonv0.0.0-20260820222146-c27c302e5fc3indirect
Gogithub.com/google/jsonschema-gov0.4.3indirect
Gogithub.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorfulv1.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-pointerv0.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/muesli/cancelreaderv0.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/segmentio/asmv1.1.3indirect
Gogithub.com/segmentio/encodingv0.5.4indirect
Gogithub.com/xo/terminfov1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/yosida95/uritemplate/v3v3.0.2indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.5indirect
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20260611194520-c48552f49976indirect
Gogolang.org/x/exp/typeparamsv0.0.0-20260820142414-ca536658362eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.40.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.35.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/telemetryv0.0.0-20260811182544-a038080d80e5indirect
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.15.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.49.0indirect
Gohonnef.co/go/toolsv0.8.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 58 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go.