Software health reportschema 0.17.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 07:46 UTC

lamoda / gonkey

Gonkey - a testing automation tool

GoMIT★ 393 stars⑂ 61 forkssince Jun 2019View on GitHub ↗

#autotesting #microservices #mocks #testing #fixtures

lamoda/gonkey holds a health index of 13 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on Security (26/100). It was last updated today. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Lamoda TechOrganization

88 followers42 public repossince Jul 2017

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/lamoda/gonkey	v1.27.0	-	62	3 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

55Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
4.2/36	Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
10.6/18	Commit volume — 14 commits in the last year
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

commits_last_year	14
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	6

Release discipline

70Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 57 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 223 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~87.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	57
latest_release_tag	v1.24.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	223
mean_days_between_releases	87.1

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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate

How it's scored

42.1/60	Stars — 393 stars
14.8/25	Forks — 61 forks
7.1/15	Watchers — 20 watchers

Inputs used

forks	61
stars	393
watchers	20
growth_state	organic
growth_factor_pct	100

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

82Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

87Excellent

How it's scored

45.9/54	Bus factor — 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 20% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 32 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	5
contributors_sampled	32
top_contributor_share	0.199

Issue & PR responsiveness

57Moderate

How it's scored

24.4/42	Issue resolution — 58% of issues closed
17.5/30	PR acceptance — 140/240 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	140
open_issues	34
closed_issues	47
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.58
closed_unmerged_prs	100
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

85Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
14/25	Owner reach — 88 followers of lamoda
23.9/25	Track record — 42 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	88
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	lamoda
public_repos	42
account_age_days	3,290

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20	Version history — 62 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/lamoda/gonkey
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

72Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
8/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	autotesting, microservices, mocks, testing, fixtures
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

26At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

8Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 software.redFlag.role.ownerRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1/2.5	CI-Tests — 11 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 10/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
3/7.5	Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5	Packaging — no data
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 27 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.1
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	20
security_posture_after_multiplier	8
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	41

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	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	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	31
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
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 31 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.

65Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

87Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, examples/with-db-example/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, examples/with-db-example/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.5/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/104 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	356,058
source_files_sampled	104
oversized_source_files	1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

393GitHub stars

32contributors

14commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

57releases

5bus factor

34open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

Star and fork history 393 ★ / 0 ⇿

393Stars

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.

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.1 / 10

4.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-21 07:45 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
4	CI-Tests	11 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 10/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
4	Maintained	5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	27 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-go/v5	`v5.11.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/fatih/color	`v1.19.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/goccy/go-yaml	`v1.19.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/joho/godotenv	`v1.5.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/kylelemons/godebug	`v1.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/lib/pq	`v1.12.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/redis/go-redis/v9	`v9.19.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tidwall/gjson	`v1.18.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.20.0`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock.v1	`v1.3.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 19 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/aerospike/aerospike-client-go/v5	`v5.11.0`	direct
Go	github.com/fatih/color	`v1.19.0`	direct
Go	github.com/goccy/go-yaml	`v1.19.2`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	direct
Go	github.com/joho/godotenv	`v1.5.1`	direct
Go	github.com/kylelemons/godebug	`v1.1.0`	direct
Go	github.com/lib/pq	`v1.12.3`	direct
Go	github.com/redis/go-redis/v9	`v9.19.0`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	github.com/tidwall/gjson	`v1.18.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.20.0`	direct
Go	gopkg.in/data-dog/go-sqlmock.v1	`v1.3.0`	direct
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-openapi/errors	`0.20.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-openapi/loads	`0.20.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-openapi/spec	`0.20.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-openapi/strfmt	`0.20.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-openapi/validate	`0.20.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/lamoda/gonkey	`1.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-colorable	`v0.1.14`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.21`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/tidwall/match	`v1.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/tidwall/pretty	`v1.2.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/yuin/gopher-lua	`v1.1.2`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/atomic	`v1.11.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.43.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	aerospike	`7.0.2`	indirect
PyPI	psycopg2-binary	`2.9.3`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.43.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`

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.

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 v0.17.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records