Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 01:38 UTC

miekg / dns

DNS library in Go

GoBSD-3-Clause★ 8,764 stars⑂ 1,210 forkssince Aug 2010View on GitHub ↗

miekg/dns holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (79/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (60/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. 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

Miek GiebenPersonal account
2,071 followers65 public repossince Aug 2010

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/miekg/dnsv1.1.73-898 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 8 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
13.5/18Commit volume31 commits in the last year
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
commits_last_year31
human_commit_share0.77
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases89 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 8 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~63.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count89
latest_release_tagv1.1.73
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases63.5
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?

79Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars8,764 stars
25/25Forks1,210 forks
12.5/15Watchers175 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,210
stars8,764
watchers175
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgoreportcard.com, shields.io, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.859
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
22.2/30PR acceptance783/1,058 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
4.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
merged_prs783
open_issues0
closed_issues658
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs275
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
23.8/25Owner reach2,071 followers of miekg
25/25Track record65 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,071
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginmiekg
public_repos65
account_age_days5,868
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history89 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/miekg/dns
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests17 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://miek.nl/2014/august/16/go-dns-package
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdnssec, go, dns-library, dns
has_wikino
homepagehttps://miek.nl/2014/august/16/go-dns-package
docs_sitehttps://miek.nl/2014/august/16/go-dns-package
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
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests17 out of 18 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 8/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
4.5/7.5Maintained7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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_packages5
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 5 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.9/40Legible commit history49 of 77 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.636
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance23 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
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.23
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes2/88 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes82,451
source_files_sampled88
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

8,764GitHub stars
99contributors
31commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
89releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,210 ⇿
0Stars
1,210Forks
89Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

02505007501,0001,2501,210202015-112021-032026-08
Major 1Minor 1Patch 87

Each point covers 10 days.

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 · 2026-08-28 01:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
9CI-Tests17 out of 18 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 8/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 3
10Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
6Maintained7 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0go.mod
All dependencies 5

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 2 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.57.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.38.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.48.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 5 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/modv0.38.0indirectunknown21.27.0-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.