Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-06 01:44 UTC

luxfi / zap

Zero-Allocation Protocol for high-performance AI agent communication

GoBSD-3-Clause★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jan 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

luxfi/zap holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (78/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

At Risk

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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

▼Organization

39 followers145 public repossince Jul 2021

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/luxfi/zap	v1.2.9	-	38	11 days ago
PyPI	zap-mdns	0.1.1	12	2	113 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

78Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 4 days ago
16.6/36	Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18	Commit volume — 90 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	90
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	4
active_weeks_last_year	24

Release discipline

74Good

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 1 releases published
27/36	Release recency — latest release 151 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	1
latest_release_tag	v0.2.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	151
mean_days_between_releases	—

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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

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

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
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	4
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

48Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

25At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.1/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.905

Issue & PR responsiveness

17Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
7.5/30	PR acceptance — 1/4 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	1
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	3
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): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
11.5/25	Owner reach — 39 followers of luxfi
23.4/25	Track record — 145 public repos, account ~5 yr old

Inputs used

followers	39
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	luxfi
public_repos	145
account_age_days	1,891

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on go, pypi
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 11 days ago
20/20	Version history — 38 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/luxfi/zap, zap-mdns
ecosystems	go, pypi
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

28At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia

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
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
2.2/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	3.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	75
security_posture_after_multiplier	28
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	38

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% 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
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	2
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:zap-mdns@0.1.1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 packages. 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.

73Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

58Moderate

How it's scored

18/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md (stub)
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 87 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.967
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	6

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

63Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — mdns/ts/tsconfig.json, zapweb/ts/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
2.2/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 90 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	Cargo.lock, go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	mdns/ts/tsconfig.json, zapweb/ts/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0.011
toolchain_manifests	go.mod, mdns/go/go.mod, mdns/rust/Cargo.toml, tools/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/246 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	45,242
source_files_sampled	246
oversized_source_files	0

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

0GitHub stars

3contributors

90commits, last 12 months

4days since last push

1releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10

3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-06 01:44 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 31 contributing companies or organizations
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
3	Vulnerabilities	7 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/coder/websocket	`v1.8.12`	go.mod
Go	github.com/luxfi/mdns	`v0.2.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/luxfi/pq	`v1.1.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/quic-go/quic-go	`v0.59.1`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/luxfi/crypto	`v1.20.2`	go.mod
PyPI	zeroconf	`>=0.130`	mdns/pyproject.toml

All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/coder/websocket	`v1.8.12`	direct
Go	github.com/luxfi/crypto	`v1.20.2`	direct
Go	github.com/luxfi/mdns	`v0.2.1`	direct
Go	github.com/luxfi/pq	`v1.1.2`	direct
Go	github.com/quic-go/quic-go	`v0.59.1`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.52.0`	direct
PyPI	zeroconf	`—`	direct
crates.io	cfg-if	`1.0.4`	indirect
crates.io	fastrand	`2.4.1`	indirect
crates.io	flume	`0.11.1`	indirect
crates.io	futures-core	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	futures-sink	`0.3.32`	indirect
crates.io	hostname	`0.4.2`	indirect
crates.io	if-addrs	`0.13.4`	indirect
crates.io	libc	`0.2.186`	indirect
crates.io	lock_api	`0.4.14`	indirect
crates.io	log	`0.4.29`	indirect
crates.io	mdns-sd	`0.13.11`	indirect
crates.io	mio	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	pin-project-lite	`0.2.17`	indirect
crates.io	proc-macro2	`1.0.106`	indirect
crates.io	quote	`1.0.45`	indirect
crates.io	scopeguard	`1.2.0`	indirect
crates.io	socket2	`0.5.10`	indirect
crates.io	spin	`0.9.8`	indirect
crates.io	syn	`2.0.117`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror	`2.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	thiserror-impl	`2.0.18`	indirect
crates.io	tokio	`1.52.3`	indirect
crates.io	tokio-macros	`2.7.0`	indirect
crates.io	unicode-ident	`1.0.24`	indirect
crates.io	wasi	`0.11.1+wasi-snapshot-preview1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-link	`0.2.1`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.52.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.59.0`	indirect
crates.io	windows-sys	`0.61.2`	indirect
crates.io	windows-targets	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_aarch64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_i686_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnu	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_gnullvm	`0.52.6`	indirect
crates.io	windows_x86_64_msvc	`0.52.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/cenkalti/backoff	`v2.2.1+incompatible`	indirect
Go	github.com/cloudflare/circl	`v1.6.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`v0.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/grandcat/zeroconf	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/hashicorp/mdns	`v1.0.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/luxfi/accel	`v1.2.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/miekg/dns	`v1.1.72`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.36.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.55.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.20.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.45.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.45.0`	indirect
npm	bonjour-service	`^1.2.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^5.0.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`^5.7.0`	indirect
PyPI	setuptools	`—`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:zap-mdns@0.1.1 pulls in 2 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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, PyPI.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records