Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:25 UTC

mautrix / go-util

Various Go utilities used by mautrix-go and bridges

GoMPL-2.0★ 18 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Aug 2023View on GitHub ↗

mautrix/go-util holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (51/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mautrixOrganization

600 followers30 public repossince Aug 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	go.mau.fi/util	v0.9.11	-	31	4 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

94Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

90Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
25.6/36	Commit cadence — 37/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 111 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 26 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	111
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	37

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 31 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~30.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	31
latest_release_tag	v0.9.11
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	4
mean_days_between_releases	30.3

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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

29At Risk

How it's scored

20/60	Stars — 18 stars
7/25	Forks — 8 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	8
stars	18
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

77Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

71Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

29At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.3/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 90% of commits
8.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	6
top_contributor_share	0.898

Issue & PR responsiveness

81Excellent

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.2/30	PR acceptance — 31/33 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	31
open_issues	0
closed_issues	3
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

88Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
20/25	Owner reach — 600 followers of mautrix
20.8/25	Track record — 30 public repos, account ~4 yr old

Inputs used

followers	600
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	mautrix
public_repos	30
account_age_days	1,809

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 4 days ago
20/20	Version history — 31 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	go.mau.fi/util
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	4

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 2 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://go.mau.fi/util
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 3 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	go, golang, utility-library
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://go.mau.fi/util
docs_site	https://go.mau.fi/util
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

53Moderate

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 — 2 out of 2 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 10 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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 26 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 — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	5.3

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

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	17
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 17 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
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	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
54.6/55	Manageable file sizes — 1/133 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	183,680
source_files_sampled	133
oversized_source_files	1

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

example_dirs	samples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	pblite/pblite.proto
interfaces_expected_of	—

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

Key facts

18GitHub stars

6contributors

111commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

31releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10

5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 20:25 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	2 out of 2 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10	Contributors	project has 10 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
10	Maintained	26 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	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/DATA-DOG/go-sqlmock	`v1.5.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3	`v1.14.48`	go.mod
Go	github.com/petermattis/goid	`v0.0.0-20260713124913-97594f28f5ca`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`v1.35.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`v0.0.0-20260709172345-9ea1abe57597`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.38.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.57.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.40.0`	go.mod
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.11`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 5 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/data-dog/go-sqlmock	`v1.5.2`	direct
Go	github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3	`v1.14.48`	direct
Go	github.com/petermattis/goid	`v0.0.0-20260713124913-97594f28f5ca`	direct
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`v1.35.1`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`v0.0.0-20260709172345-9ea1abe57597`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.38.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.57.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.40.0`	direct
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.11`	direct
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-colorable	`v0.1.14`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.20`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rs/xid	`v1.6.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 17 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

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 v0.16.0 — 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

More detail

Feedback

Related records