Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-18 23:02 UTC

ltcsuite / ltcd

An alternative full node litecoin implementation written in golang

GoISC★ 43 stars⑂ 35 forkssince Jan 2019forkView on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

ltcsuite/ltcd holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (65/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (35/100). It was last updated 64 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

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.

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

Ownership

Litecoin in GoOrganization

5 followers12 public repossince Apr 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/ltcsuite/ltcd	v0.23.6	-	5	531 days ago
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/btcec/v2	v2.3.2	-	2	991 days ago
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/ltcutil	v1.1.4	-	3	531 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

31At Risk

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 64 days ago
2.8/36	Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
8.1/18	Commit volume — 7 commits in the last year
2/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

commits_last_year	7
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	64
active_weeks_last_year	4

Release discipline

40Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 4 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 991 days ago
5.4/27	Release cadence — a release every ~486.4 days
8/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	4
latest_release_tag	v0.23.5
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	991
mean_days_between_releases	486.4

Community & Adoption

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

35Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak

How it's scored

26.3/60	Stars — 43 stars
12.8/25	Forks — 35 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	35
stars	43
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

25At Risk

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	no
has_license	no
readme_badges	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	coveralls.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

61Moderate

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 41 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	100
top_contributor_share	0.462

Issue & PR responsiveness

67Good

How it's scored

34.4/42	Issue resolution — 82% of issues closed
23.8/30	PR acceptance — 23/29 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	23
open_issues	2
closed_issues	9
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.818
closed_unmerged_prs	6
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
5.6/25	Owner reach — 5 followers of ltcsuite
20.1/25	Track record — 12 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	5
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	ltcsuite
public_repos	12
account_age_days	3,462

Package maintenance

79Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 3 package(s) on go
14/35	Publish recency — latest publish 531 days ago
20/20	Version history — 5 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd, github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/btcec/v2, github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/ltcutil
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	531

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

45Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

0/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/blob/master/docs/README.md
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/blob/master/docs/README.md
docs_site	https://github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/blob/master/docs/README.md
has_readme	no
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	no

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

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
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 41 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
1.5/7.5	Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5	Packaging — no data
2/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
6/7.5	Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 39 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

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

Dependency advisories

39Weak

How it's scored

5/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 4 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.38.0 (critical 10.0), golang.org/x/crypto v0.7.0 (critical 10.0), golang.org/x/sys v0.13.0 (unknown), +1 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
24.2/40	No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,035 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	94
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	42
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	critical 2, moderate 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 42 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

8Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.5/40	Legible commit history — 16 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.16
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

65Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, docs/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
4/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, docs/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	btcec/go.mod, chaincfg/chainhash/go.mod, go.mod, ltcutil/go.mod, ltcutil/psbt/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 13/524 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	151,594
source_files_sampled	524
oversized_source_files	13

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

43GitHub stars

100contributors

7commits, last 12 months

64days since last push

4releases

2bus factor

2open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 35 ⇿

0Stars

35Forks

4Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 0Patch 1

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-18 23:02 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 3 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/11 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 41 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
2	Maintained	3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
4	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
8	Signed-Releases	2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	39 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 33

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	btcec/go.mod
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4	`v4.0.1`	btcec/go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/chaincfg/chainhash	`v1.0.2`	btcec/go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.8.3`	btcec/go.mod
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btclog	`v0.0.0-20241003133417-09c4e92e319c`	go.mod
Go	github.com/btcsuite/go-socks	`v0.0.0-20170105172521-4720035b7bfd`	go.mod
Go	github.com/btcsuite/websocket	`v0.0.0-20150119174127-31079b680792`	go.mod
Go	github.com/btcsuite/winsvc	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4	`v4.0.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/lru	`v1.1.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/jessevdk/go-flags	`v1.5.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/jrick/logrotate	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/btcec/v2	`v2.3.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/chaincfg/chainhash	`v1.0.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/ltcutil	`v1.1.5-0.20250724031157-a9e8b8c8340e`	go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/secp256k1	`v0.1.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.10.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/syndtr/goleveldb	`v1.0.1-0.20210819022825-2ae1ddf74ef7`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.38.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.33.0`	go.mod
Go	gotest.tools	`v2.2.0+incompatible`	go.mod
Go	lukechampine.com/blake3	`v1.2.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aead/siphash	`v1.0.1`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4	`v4.0.1`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/kkdai/bstream	`v1.0.0`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd	`v0.23.6-0.20250505084124-c37ac1524e04`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/btcec/v2	`v2.3.2`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/chaincfg/chainhash	`v1.0.2`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/secp256k1	`v0.1.1`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.38.0`	ltcutil/go.mod
Go	lukechampine.com/blake3	`v1.2.1`	ltcutil/go.mod

All dependencies 43

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 27 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/aead/siphash	`v1.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btclog	`v0.0.0-20170628155309-84c8d2346e9f`	direct
Go	github.com/btcsuite/btclog	`v0.0.0-20241003133417-09c4e92e319c`	direct
Go	github.com/btcsuite/go-socks	`v0.0.0-20170105172521-4720035b7bfd`	direct
Go	github.com/btcsuite/websocket	`v0.0.0-20150119174127-31079b680792`	direct
Go	github.com/btcsuite/winsvc	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	direct
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/dcrec/secp256k1/v4	`v4.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/lru	`v1.1.1`	direct
Go	github.com/jessevdk/go-flags	`v1.5.0`	direct
Go	github.com/jrick/logrotate	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/kkdai/bstream	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd	`v0.23.6-0.20250505084124-c37ac1524e04`	direct
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/btcec/v2	`v2.3.2`	direct
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/chaincfg/chainhash	`v1.0.2`	direct
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/ltcd/ltcutil	`v1.1.5-0.20250724031157-a9e8b8c8340e`	direct
Go	github.com/ltcsuite/secp256k1	`v0.1.1`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`1.8.3`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.10.0`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.8.3`	direct
Go	github.com/syndtr/goleveldb	`v1.0.1-0.20210819022825-2ae1ddf74ef7`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.38.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.7.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.13.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.33.0`	direct
Go	gotest.tools	`v2.2.0+incompatible`	direct
Go	lukechampine.com/blake3	`v1.2.1`	direct
Go	github.com/decred/dcrd/crypto/blake256	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.5.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang/snappy	`v0.0.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`v0.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/cpuid/v2	`v2.0.9`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/pretty	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/text	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/onsi/ginkgo	`v1.16.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/onsi/gomega	`v1.26.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pkg/errors	`v0.9.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal	`v1.12.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.40.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/check.v1	`v1.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6c`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect
PyPI	sphinx-markdown-tables	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 42 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 4 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.38.0`	direct	critical	35	`0.56.0`
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.7.0`	direct	critical	41	`3.4.0`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.40.0`	indirect	moderate	16	`1.27.2`
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.13.0`	direct	unknown	1	`0.44.0`
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.33.0`	direct	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 v0.34.0 — 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

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records