Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 00:00 UTC

linksocks / croc

Easily and securely send things from one computer to another :crocodile: :package:

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026forkView on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

linksocks/croc holds a health index of 35 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (67/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 20 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

35
overall / 100
Weak

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.

35
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 40 is calibrated to 35 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

1 follower7 public repossince Aug 2025

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/linksocks/crocv1.1.0-2020 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

60Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 20 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
16.5/18Commit volume67 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year67
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push20
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 289 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~36 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv10.3.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release289
mean_days_between_releases36
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
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized 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_badges3
has_contributingno
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?

41Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 88% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.881
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
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, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach1 followers of linksocks
8.7/25Track record7 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlinksocks
public_repos7
account_age_days383

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 20 days ago
20/20Version history20 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/linksocks/croc
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish20

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno 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

15Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://schollz.com/software/croc6
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://schollz.com/software/croc6
docs_sitehttps://schollz.com/software/croc6
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
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
0/7.5Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities27 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history75 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.843
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapsrc/install/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance11 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filessrc/install/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes1/32 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes73,011
source_files_sampled32
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

0GitHub stars
98contributors
67commits, last 12 months
20days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 00:00 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
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities27 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/chzyer/readlinev1.5.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/denisbrodbeck/machineidv1.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/kalafut/imohashv1.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/magisterquis/connectproxyv0.0.0-20200725203833-3582e84f0c9bgo.mod
Gogithub.com/minio/highwayhashv1.0.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/sabhiram/go-gitignorev0.0.0-20210923224102-525f6e181f06go.mod
Gogithub.com/schollz/cli/v2v2.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/schollz/loggerv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/schollz/pake/v3v3.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/schollz/peerdiscoveryv1.7.6go.mod
Gogithub.com/schollz/progressbar/v3v3.19.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/skip2/go-qrcodev0.0.0-20200617195104-da1b6568686ego.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.48.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.50.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.41.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/termv0.40.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.14.0go.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 statisticsGo.