Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-15 23:47 UTC

mautrix / slack

A Matrix-Slack puppeting bridge

GoAGPL-3.0★ 102 stars⑂ 31 forkssince May 2022View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

mautrix/slack holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (89/100) and lowest on Security (42/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

mautrixOrganization
626 followers30 public repossince Aug 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogo.mau.fi/mautrix-slackv0.2608.0-1830 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

89Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18Commit volume — 88 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year88
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year35
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 30 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~40.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv0.2608.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release30
mean_days_between_releases40.6

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.5/60Stars — 102 stars
12.3/25Forks — 31 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks31
stars102
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

65Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 57% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.574
How it's scored
35.3/42Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
18.4/30PR acceptance — 30/49 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs30
open_issues7
closed_issues37
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio0.841
closed_unmerged_prs19
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.1/25Owner reach — 626 followers of mautrix
21.1/25Track record — 30 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers626
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginmautrix
public_repos30
account_age_days1,866

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 30 days ago
20/20Version history — 18 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgo.mau.fi/mautrix-slack
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish30

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

86Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://go.mau.fi/mautrix-slack/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgo, golang, matrix, bridge, slack, matrix-appservice, matrix-org
has_wikino
homepagehttps://go.mau.fi/mautrix-slack/
docs_sitehttps://go.mau.fi/mautrix-slack/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
37.9/40Legible commit history — 71 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.71
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/39 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes25,266
source_files_sampled39
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

102GitHub stars
14contributors
88commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
7open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OSV advisory lookup failed: [Errno 101] Network is unreachable

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 31 ⇿
0Stars
31Forks
18Releases

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.

01325383122022-082024-082026-08
Major 0Minor 11Patch 7

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-15 23:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests12 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3Code-ReviewFound 11/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 12 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/gabriel-vasile/mimetypev1.4.15go.mod
Gogithub.com/lib/pqv1.12.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.35.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/slack-go/slackv0.24.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/yuin/goldmarkv1.8.5go.mod
Gogo.mau.fi/utilv0.10.1-0.20260820140024-eb612d936fdego.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gomaunium.net/go/mautrixv0.30.1-0.20260901142729-ae4f0c6675b4go.mod
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/gabriel-vasile/mimetypev1.4.15direct
Gogithub.com/lib/pqv1.12.3direct
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.35.1direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1direct
Gogithub.com/yuin/goldmarkv1.8.5direct
Gogo.mau.fi/utilv0.10.1-0.20260820140024-eb612d936fdedirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1direct
Gomaunium.net/go/mautrixv0.30.1-0.20260901142729-ae4f0c6675b4direct
Gofilippo.io/edwards25519v1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/coder/websocketv1.8.15indirect
Gogithub.com/coreos/go-systemd/v22v22.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gorilla/websocketv1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.14indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.20indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-sqlite3v1.14.49indirect
Gogithub.com/petermattis/goidv0.0.0-20260816044145-ed329add6b1bindirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rs/xidv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/skip2/go-qrcodev0.0.0-20200617195104-da1b6568686eindirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/gjsonv1.19.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/matchv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/prettyv1.2.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/sjsonv1.2.5indirect
Gogo.mau.fi/zeroconfigv0.2.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.55.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20260813180055-c1d0aacb2297indirect
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.40.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.41.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/natefinch/lumberjack.v2v2.2.1indirect
Gomaunium.net/go/mauflagv1.0.0indirect
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: OSV advisory lookup failed: [Errno 101] Network is unreachable

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 statistics — Go.