Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 22:44 UTC

luisgf / infrabroker

Infrastructure access broker for AI agents — SSH & Kubernetes. Per-operation ephemeral credentials minted by a separate signer; the model never touches one. MCP stdio / HTTP+OIDC.

GoGPL-3.0★ 10 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined

#ai-agents #golang #kubernetes #mcp #mcp-server #prompt-injection #security #ssh #ssh-certificates #zero-trust

luisgf/infrabroker holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (41/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luis González FernándezPersonal account

15 followers19 public repossince Sep 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/luisgf/infrabroker	v1.38.0	-	71	77 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

79Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

72Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
7.6/36	Commit cadence — 11/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 464 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	464
human_commit_share	0.91
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	11

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 72 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~7.4 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	72
latest_release_tag	v3.1.3
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	11
mean_days_between_releases	7.4

Community & Adoption

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

41Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

16Critical

How it's scored

15.5/60	Stars — 10 stars
0/25	Forks — 0 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	0
stars	10
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	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	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, goreportcard.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?

56Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

40.7/42	Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
29.5/30	PR acceptance — 219/223 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	219
open_issues	6
closed_issues	189
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	13
prs_decided_30d	13
issue_closed_ratio	0.969
closed_unmerged_prs	4
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

50Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
8.7/25	Owner reach — 15 followers of luisgf
21.5/25	Track record — 19 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	15
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	luisgf
public_repos	19
account_age_days	5,123

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 77 days ago
20/20	Version history — 71 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/luisgf/infrabroker
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	77

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://luisgf.github.io/infrabroker/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 10 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	ai-agents, golang, kubernetes, mcp, mcp-server, prompt-injection, security, ssh, ssh-certificates, zero-trust
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://luisgf.github.io/infrabroker/
docs_site	https://luisgf.github.io/infrabroker/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

63Moderate

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
4.5/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	6.3

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

89Excellent

How it's scored

26.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.56.0 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	37
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	unknown 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 37 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.

71Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 91 of 91 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — 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
8/8	Automated maintenance — 9 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.09

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.4/55	Manageable file sizes — 2/183 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	65,575
source_files_sampled	183
oversized_source_files	2

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

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

Key facts

10GitHub stars

1contributors

464commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

72releases

1bus factor

6open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

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 · 2026-09-19 22:44 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10	CI-Tests	26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/24 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
5	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
9	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9	Vulnerabilities	1 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 11

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcore	`v1.23.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity	`v1.14.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/security/keyvault/azkeys	`v1.5.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3	`v3.21.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4	`v4.1.5`	go.mod
Go	github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk	`v1.7.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/slack-go/slack	`v0.29.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tailscale/hujson	`v0.0.0-20260302212456-ecc657c15afd`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.56.0`	go.mod
Go	modernc.org/sqlite	`v1.58.0`	go.mod
Go	mvdan.cc/sh/v3	`v3.14.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 11 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcore	`v1.23.1`	direct
Go	github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentity	`v1.14.1`	direct
Go	github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/security/keyvault/azkeys	`v1.5.0`	direct
Go	github.com/coreos/go-oidc/v3	`v3.21.0`	direct
Go	github.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4	`v4.1.5`	direct
Go	github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk	`v1.7.0`	direct
Go	github.com/slack-go/slack	`v0.29.0`	direct
Go	github.com/tailscale/hujson	`v0.0.0-20260302212456-ecc657c15afd`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.56.0`	direct
Go	modernc.org/sqlite	`v1.58.0`	direct
Go	mvdan.cc/sh/v3	`v3.14.0`	direct
Go	github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/internal	`v1.12.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/security/keyvault/internal	`v1.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/azuread/microsoft-authentication-library-for-go	`v1.8.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/dustin/go-humanize	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5	`v5.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/jsonschema-go	`v0.4.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/gorilla/websocket	`v1.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/kylelemons/godebug	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.24`	indirect
Go	github.com/ncruces/go-strftime	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pkg/browser	`v0.0.0-20240102092130-5ac0b6a4141c`	indirect
Go	github.com/remyoudompheng/bigfft	`v0.0.0-20230129092748-24d4a6f8daec`	indirect
Go	github.com/segmentio/asm	`v1.1.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/segmentio/encoding	`v0.5.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/yosida95/uritemplate/v3	`v3.0.2`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.58.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.36.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.22.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.41.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.15.0`	indirect
Go	modernc.org/libc	`v1.75.6`	indirect
Go	modernc.org/mathutil	`v1.7.1`	indirect
Go	modernc.org/memory	`v1.12.1`	indirect
PyPI	mkdocs-material	`9.7.7`	indirect

Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 37 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.56.0`	direct	unknown	1	—

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