Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 12:29 UTC

netboxlabs / pktvisor

pktvisor is a dynamic network observability agent that smartly analyzes network traffic and generates opentelemetry metrics

C++ · CMPL-2.0★ 524 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Feb 2020View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceDesktop applicationhow this is determined

netboxlabs/pktvisor holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (81/100) and lowest on Vitality (61/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

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

Ownership

NetBox LabsOrganization · verified domain
236 followers26 public repossince Oct 2022

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 17 days ago
11.1/36Commit cadence16/52 weeks with commits
15.2/18Commit volume48 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year48
human_commit_share0.89
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year16
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases15 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 359 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~179.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count15
latest_release_tagtoolchains
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release359
mean_days_between_releases179.6

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
44.1/60Stars524 stars
12.5/25Forks33 forks
8.7/15Watchers37 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars524
watchers37
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MPL-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 66% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth17 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled17
top_contributor_share0.662
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
27.1/30PR acceptance518/574 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs518
open_issues1
closed_issues218
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio0.995
closed_unmerged_prs56
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
17.1/25Owner reach236 followers of netboxlabs
18.2/25Track record26 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers236
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnetboxlabs
public_repos26
account_age_days1,419

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://orb.community
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics11 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsobservability, monitoring, api-first, collector-agent, prometheus, grafana, agent, stream-processors, packet-capture, dnstap, pcap
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://orb.community
docs_sitehttps://orb.community
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
2.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
4.5/5SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages33
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 33 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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.docker.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history89 of 89 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.docker.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapappimage/Makefile, docker/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice14 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance11 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesappimage/Makefile, docker/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.14
toolchain_manifestsgolang/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.11
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes6/279 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes166,721
source_files_sampled279
oversized_source_files6
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)src/inputs/dnstap/pb/dnstap.proto
0/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filessrc/inputs/dnstap/pb/dnstap.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

524GitHub stars
17contributors
48commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
15releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
11Releases

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.

013253833102020-092023-092026-08
Major 1Minor 8Patch 1

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 12:29 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
10CI-Tests18 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained24 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5
9SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-versionv1.3.0golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/jroimartin/gocuiv0.5.0golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/mapstructurev1.4.2golang/go.mod
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1golang/go.mod
All dependencies 33

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-version1.3.0direct
Gogithub.com/jroimartin/gocui0.4.0direct
Gogithub.com/jroimartin/gocui0.5.0direct
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/mapstructure1.4.2direct
Gogithub.com/pkg/errors0.9.1direct
Gogithub.com/docopt/docopt-go0.0.0-20180111231733-ee0de3bc6815indirect
Gogithub.com/nsf/termbox-go0.0.0-20201124104050-ed494de23a00indirect
PyPIattrs21.4.0indirect
PyPIbehave1.2.6indirect
PyPIbehavex1.5.11indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.12.14indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer2.1.0indirect
PyPIconfigobj5.0.9indirect
PyPIcsscompressor0.9.5indirect
PyPIdeepdiff8.6.2indirect
PyPIdocker5.0.3indirect
PyPIhtmlmin0.1.12indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIimportlib-resources5.9.0indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.7.2indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.1indirect
PyPIordered-set4.1.0indirect
PyPIparse1.19.0indirect
PyPIparse-type0.6.0indirect
PyPIpyhamcrest2.0.3indirect
PyPIpyrsistent0.18.1indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIsix1.16.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIwebsocket-client1.3.3indirect
PyPIzipp3.21.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 33 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.

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.