Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-26 00:37 UTC

kokizzu / fiber

🚀 Fiber is an Express.js inspired web framework written in Go 🐿️

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2020forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined

kokizzu/fiber holds a health index of 25 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (65/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

25
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.

25
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Kiswono PrayogoPersonal account
224 followers2,756 public repossince Sep 2011Remote Programmer

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/gofiber/fiber/v2points to another repo — not scoredv2.52.15-9813 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

37Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

29At Risk
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 20 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.86
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 31 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,392 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count31
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,392
mean_days_between_releases0.9
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 1 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.7/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 59 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.57

Issue & PR responsiveness

64Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
28.7/30PR acceptance — 361/377 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs361
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs16
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.

Ownership & stewardship

65Good
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.9/25Owner reach — 224 followers of kokizzu
25/25Track record — 2,756 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers224
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkokizzu
public_repos2,756
account_age_days5,454
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

62Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://fiber.wiki
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://fiber.wiki
docs_sitehttps://fiber.wiki
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak
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 — 0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 59 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
32.9/40Legible commit history — 53 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.616
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

76Good
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.14

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 2/314 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes172,666
source_files_sampled314
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

0GitHub stars
99contributors
0commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
31releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • go package 'github.com/gofiber/fiber/v2' points at a different repository (https://github.com/gofiber/fiber); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-26 00:36 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/21 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 59 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.13go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.20go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.15go.mod
Gogithub.com/tinylib/msgpv1.1.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/valyala/bytebufferpoolv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasthttpv1.51.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.15.0go.mod
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with kokizzu/fiber. Read them side by side →

100cilium/ciliumeBPF-based Networking, Security, and ObservabilityExceptional100coder/coderSecure environments for developers and their agentsExceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100containerd/containerdAn open and reliable container runtimeExceptional100grafana/lokiLike Prometheus, but for logs.Exceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional

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.