# mulgadc/predastore — health index 65/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository mulgadc/predastore by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/mulgadc/predastore
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/mulgadc/predastore
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/mulgadc/predastore/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/mulgadc/predastore.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-17
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 34/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 66/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 72/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 56/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 58/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | PredaStore is a high-performance, on-premise and edge-ready object storage platform, fully compatible with the Amazon S3 API. Designed for environments where speed, redundancy, and resiliency are critical, PredaStore is the ideal solution for edge data centers, private clouds, and hybrid deployments that demand low latency and high availability. |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 7 |
| Forks | 1 |
| Created | 2025-04-14 |
| Last push | 2026-07-16 |
| Latest release | v1.5.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 296 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | s3, s3-alternative, minio, minio-server, edge-computing, object-storage, aws-alternative, onprem, s3-server, s3-api, distributed-storage, distributed-storage-system, cloud-edge |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/mulgadc/predastore | v1.12.1 | — |

## Vitality — 90/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 24.2 / 36 | 35/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 296 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 92/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 7 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 44 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~64.4 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 34/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 12.6 / 60 | 7 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 1 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (AGPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 66/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 57/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 15.1 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 33% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 6.8 / 13.5 | 5 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 68/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 36.3 / 38.2 | 56/59 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 47/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 7.2 / 25 | 9 followers of mulgadc |
| Track record | partial | 9.9 / 25 | 8 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 2 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 34 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 72/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 1 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 13 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 56/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 56/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | 1 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 58/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/137 source files over 60KB |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt