Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 06:12 UTC

netresearch / raybeam

A simple public key store, currently supporting only SSH keys

GoMIT★ 2 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jun 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

netresearch/raybeam holds a health index of 81 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 8 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

81
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.

81
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 69 is calibrated to 81 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Netresearch DTT GmbHOrganization · verified domain
43 followers287 public repossince Nov 2009

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?

85Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 8 days ago
30.5/36Commit cadence44/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume333 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year333
human_commit_share0.49
days_since_last_push8
active_weeks_last_year44
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases12 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 24 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~121.9 days
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv1.2.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release24
mean_days_between_releases121.9

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars2 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars2
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges11
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, pkg.go.dev, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 79% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth2 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.793
How it's scored
21/42Issue resolution50% of issues closed
28.2/30PR acceptance259/276 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs259
open_issues1
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio0.5
closed_unmerged_prs17
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
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.8/25Owner reach43 followers of netresearch
25/25Track record287 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginnetresearch
public_repos287
account_age_days6,157

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows13 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspki, pki-service, pubkey, golang, application
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

81Excellent · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 9 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
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
3.8/7.5Signed-Releases3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.
7.5/7.5Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.57.0 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages70
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 70 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.

80Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, cmd/AGENTS.md, internal/AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history49 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, cmd/AGENTS.md, internal/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,869
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance51 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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.51
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes40,130
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

2GitHub stars
2contributors
333commits, last 12 months
8days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.8 / 10
7.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 06:12 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 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 9 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
5Signed-Releases3 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 4 signed artifacts.
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3v3.4.14go.mod
Gogithub.com/gofiber/fiber/v3v3.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/netresearch/simple-ldap-gov1.16.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/testcontainers/testcontainers-gov0.44.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/testcontainers/testcontainers-go/modules/openldapv0.44.0go.mod
Gogo.etcd.io/bboltv1.5.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.57.0go.mod
All dependencies 70

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/go-ldap/ldap/v3v3.4.14direct
Gogithub.com/gofiber/fiber/v3v3.5.0direct
Gogithub.com/netresearch/simple-ldap-gov1.16.0direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2direct
Gogithub.com/testcontainers/testcontainers-gov0.44.0direct
Gogithub.com/testcontainers/testcontainers-go/modules/openldapv0.44.0direct
Gogo.etcd.io/bboltv1.5.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.57.0direct
Godario.cat/mergov1.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/andybalholm/brotliv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/azure/go-ansitermv0.0.0-20250102033503-faa5f7b0171cindirect
Gogithub.com/azure/go-ntlmsspv0.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/cenkalti/backoff/v4v4.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/containerd/errdefsv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/containerd/errdefs/pkgv0.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/containerd/logv0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/containerd/platformsv0.2.1indirect
Gogithub.com/cpuguy83/dockercfgv0.3.2indirect
Gogithub.com/distribution/referencev0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-connectionsv0.8.1indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-unitsv0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/ebitengine/puregov0.10.2indirect
Gogithub.com/felixge/httpsnoopv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-asn1-ber/asn1-berv1.5.8indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/logrv1.4.4indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/stdrv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-ole/go-olev1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/gofiber/schemav1.8.3indirect
Gogithub.com/gofiber/utils/v2v2.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.19.2indirect
Gogithub.com/lufia/plan9statsv0.0.0-20260802145828-341c2f0c90b5indirect
Gogithub.com/magiconair/propertiesv1.18.11indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.15indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.24indirect
Gogithub.com/microsoft/go-winiov0.6.2indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/docker-image-specv1.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/go-archivev0.3.3indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/moby/apiv1.55.0indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/moby/clientv0.5.1indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/patternmatcherv0.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/sys/sequentialv0.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/sys/userv0.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/sys/usernsv0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/moby/termv0.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/go-digestv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/image-specv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/philhofer/fwdv1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/power-devops/perfstatv0.0.0-20260805114148-88456608a4f6indirect
Gogithub.com/shirou/gopsutil/v4v4.26.7indirect
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.10.2indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tinylib/msgpv1.6.4indirect
Gogithub.com/tklauser/go-sysconfv0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tklauser/numcpusv0.12.0indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/bytebufferpoolv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasthttpv1.73.0indirect
Gogithub.com/yusufpapurcu/wmiv1.2.4indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdkv1.2.1indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttpv0.70.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.46.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/metricv1.46.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.46.0indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.5indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.58.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.48.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.42.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 70 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/cryptov0.57.0directunknown1

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.