Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 08:57 UTC

mattermost / mattermost-utilities

JavaScriptNo license detected★ 11 stars⑂ 28 forkssince Jun 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

mattermost/mattermost-utilities holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (79/100) and lowest on Vitality (41/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MattermostOrganization · verified domain
2,606 followers267 public repossince Nov 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npmmmjstoolpoints to another repo — not scored0.0.1-security2412019 days ago
Gogithub.com/mattermost/mattermost-utilitiesv1.1.2-41150 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

41Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 4 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases1 releases published
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,251 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencecadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv1.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,251
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?

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
16.2/60Stars11 stars
11.9/25Forks28 forks
7.8/15Watchers26 watchers
Inputs used
forks28
stars11
watchers26
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

79Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 48% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth23 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.481
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
28.5/30PR acceptance76/80 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs76
open_issues0
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs4
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
24.6/25Owner reach2,606 followers of mattermost
25/25Track record267 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,606
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginmattermost
public_repos267
account_age_days4,322
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 1,150 days ago
12/20Version history4 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/mattermost/mattermost-utilities
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1,150

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicshacktoberfest
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
0/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5Vulnerabilities352 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.9/40Legible commit history65 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.691
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapmmgotool/vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.json
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance6 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, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesmmgotool/vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgithub_jira/go.mod, mmgotool/go.mod, mmgotool/vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/go.mod, pluginops/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeJavaScript without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/37 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJavaScript
largest_source_bytes20,179
source_files_sampled37
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

11GitHub stars
23contributors
1commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
1releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Go, npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • npm package 'mmjstool' points at a different repository (https://github.com/npm/security-holder); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 28 ⇿
0Stars
28Forks
1Releases

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.

0510152025302822018-112022-102026-09
Major 1Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 08:56 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 28 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 27/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0Vulnerabilities352 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1github_jira/go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.0.0mmgotool/go.mod
npmestree-walk^2.2.0package.json
npmfilehound^1.17.5package.json
npmsort-json^2.0.0package.json
npmwebpack-cli^4.9.1package.json
npmyargs^17.3.1package.json
Gogithub.com/blang/semver/v4v4.0.0pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-git/v5v5.1.0pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/go-github/v32v32.1.0pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/manifoldco/promptuiv0.7.0pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/v6v6.4.1pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.8.1pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.2.1pluginops/go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.7.0pluginops/go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20230321023759-10a507213a29pluginops/go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.0.0-20210805134026-6f1e6394065apluginops/go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.0.0-20220722155255-886fb9371eb4pluginops/go.mod
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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 statisticsnpm, Go.