Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 13:55 UTC

manuelarte / embeddedstructfieldcheck

Go Linter 🧐 (available in golangci-lint) that checks that embedded fields should be at the top of the field list of a struct, and there must be an empty line separating embedded fields from regular fields.

GoApache-2.0★ 5 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

manuelarte/embeddedstructfieldcheck holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (33/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Manuel Doncel MartosPersonal account
32 followers42 public repossince Aug 2013@ing-bank

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/manuelarte/embeddedstructfieldcheckv0.4.0-5379 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence23/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume26 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share0.537
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year23
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 379 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~28.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv0.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release379
mean_days_between_releases28.3
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars5
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 93% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.931
How it's scored
33.6/42Issue resolution80% of issues closed
29.4/30PR acceptance49/50 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs49
open_issues1
closed_issues4
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.8
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.9/25Owner reach32 followers of manuelarte
23.9/25Track record42 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmanuelarte
public_repos42
account_age_days4,746
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 379 days ago
20/20Version history5 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/manuelarte/embeddedstructfieldcheck
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish379

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbest-practices, go, golang, linter
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 3 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.

74Good · 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 history24 of 29 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.828
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 54
8/8Automated maintenance25 of the last 54 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.463
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes2,492
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5GitHub stars
2contributors
26commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
5releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 13:55 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests29 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 3/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.49.0go.mod
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.49.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.39.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/modv0.39.0indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3

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.

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.