Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 16:30 UTC

korjwl1 / wireguide

Cross-platform WireGuard VPN desktop client — Go + Wails v3 + Svelte

Go · SvelteMIT★ 95 stars⑂ 6 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

korjwl1/wireguide holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Security (48/100). 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

korjwl1Personal account
9 followers10 public repossince Sep 2020@letsur-dev

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/korjwl1/wireguidev0.5.1-1630 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 316 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year316
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year11

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 16 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 30 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.8 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count16
latest_release_tagv0.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases13.8

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32/60Stars — 95 stars
5.8/25Forks — 6 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks6
stars95
watchers2
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.997
How it's scored
34.8/42Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance — 6/7 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs6
open_issues6
closed_issues29
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.829
closed_unmerged_prs1
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
7.2/25Owner reach — 9 followers of korjwl1
19.5/25Track record — 10 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers9
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginkorjwl1
public_repos10
account_age_days2,172
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 30 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/korjwl1/wireguide
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish30

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

71Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 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
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdesktop-app, go, macos, networking, svelte, vpn, wails, wireguard, wireguard-client, windows
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml, build/Taskfile.yml, build/darwin/Taskfile.yml, build/linux/Taskfile.yml, build/windows/Taskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — frontend/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 41 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml, build/Taskfile.yml, build/darwin/Taskfile.yml, build/linux/Taskfile.yml, build/windows/Taskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configsfrontend/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.41
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/224 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes55,637
source_files_sampled224
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

95GitHub stars
2contributors
316commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
16releases
1bus factor
6open 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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 6 ⇿
0Stars
6Forks
7Releases

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.

123456612026-042026-062026-08
Major 0Minor 3Patch 4
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 · 2026-09-10 16:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 22 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@codemirror/autocomplete6.20.3frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/commands6.10.4frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/language6.12.4frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/lint6.9.7frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/search6.7.1frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/state6.7.1frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/theme-one-dark6.1.3frontend/package.json
npm@codemirror/view6.43.7frontend/package.json
npm@lezer/highlight1.2.3frontend/package.json
npm@wailsio/runtime3.0.0-alpha.74frontend/package.json
npmcodemirror6.0.2frontend/package.json
Gogithub.com/Microsoft/go-winiov0.6.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/godbus/dbus/v5v5.2.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/makiuchi-d/gozxingv0.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/wailsapp/wails/v3v3.0.0-alpha.74go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/imagev0.44.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0go.mod
Gogolang.zx2c4.com/wireguardv0.0.0-20260522210424-ecfc5a8d5446go.mod
Gogolang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/wgctrlv0.0.0-20241231184526-a9ab2273dd10go.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 statistics — Go.