Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-04 13:09 UTC

kontext-security / kontext

Secure agents in seconds with permissions enforced at runtime.

GoMIT★ 211 stars⑂ 7 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

kontext-security/kontext holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KontextOrganization
43 followers14 public repossince Oct 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/kontext-security/kontextv1.3.0-332 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence22/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume287 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year287
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases33 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~6.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count33
latest_release_tagv1.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases6.2

Community & Adoption

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

66Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.7/60Stars211 stars
6.5/25Forks7 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks7
stars211
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.1/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 42% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.417
How it's scored
39.9/42Issue resolution95% of issues closed
18.6/30PR acceptance275/444 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs275
open_issues1
closed_issues19
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d22
prs_decided_30d23
issue_closed_ratio0.95
closed_unmerged_prs169
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.8/25Owner reach43 followers of kontext-security
16.3/25Track record14 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginkontext-security
public_repos14
account_age_days1,412

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 2 days ago
20/20Version history33 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/kontext-security/kontext
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://app.kontext.security
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-agents, audit-logging, golang, security, security-tools, kontext, ai, developer-tools, authorization, permissions
has_wikino
homepagehttps://app.kontext.security
docs_sitehttps://app.kontext.security
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.3

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_packages19
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 19 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.kontext.security/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history82 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.kontext.security/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice35 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.35
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes2/240 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes64,850
source_files_sampled240
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

211GitHub stars
5contributors
287commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
33releases
2bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 7 ⇿
0Stars
7Forks
9Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

1234567712026-042026-052026-06
Major 0Minor 6Patch 3
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.3 / 10
6.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-04 13:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 4/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/cedar-policy/cedar-gov1.8.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gowebpki/jcsv1.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.45.0go.mod
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.54.0go.mod
Gomvdan.cc/sh/v3v3.13.1go.mod
All dependencies 19

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 10 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/cedar-policy/cedar-gov1.8.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/gowebpki/jcsv1.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.45.0direct
Gomodernc.org/sqlitev1.54.0direct
Gomvdan.cc/sh/v3v3.13.1direct
Gogithub.com/dustin/go-humanizev1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/ncruces/go-strftimev1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/remyoudompheng/bigfftv0.0.0-20230129092748-24d4a6f8daecindirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.9indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1indirect
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20220921023135-46d9e7742f1eindirect
Gomodernc.org/libcv1.74.1indirect
Gomodernc.org/mathutilv1.7.1indirect
Gomodernc.org/memoryv1.11.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 19 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 statisticsGo.