# opsre/WatchAlert — health index 63/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository opsre/WatchAlert by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 63 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/opsre/WatchAlert
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/opsre/WatchAlert
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/opsre/WatchAlert/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/opsre/WatchAlert.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-23
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 81/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 78/100 | Good |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 55/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 41/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 48/100 | At risk |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | 🚀A lightweight cloud-native multi-data source monitoring and alerting engine ｜一款轻量级云原生多数据源监控告警引擎 |
| Homepage | https://cairry.github.io |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 946 |
| Forks | 176 |
| Created | 2023-11-09 |
| Last push | 2026-06-05 |
| Latest release | v3.9.16 |
| Commits (last year) | 135 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | alertmanager, golang, prometheus, react, docker, exporter, kubernetes, cloudwatch, victoriametrics, kubernetes-events-monitoring, elasticsearch, loki, opsre, observability |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 69/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | partial | 18 / 36 | last push 47 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 27 / 36 | 39/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 135 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 6 / 10 | 6 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (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 | 59 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 47 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~8.9 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 | last human commit 47 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 78/100 (Good)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 48.3 / 60 | 946 stars |
| Forks | partial | 18.7 / 25 | 176 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.3 / 15 | 10 watchers |

### Community health — 85/100 (Excellent)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 55/100 (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) — 35/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 88% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 18 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 74/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 39.2 / 46.8 | 84% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 35.2 / 38.2 | 114/124 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.4 / 25 | 264 followers of opsre |
| Track record | partial | 12.1 / 25 | 15 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 59/100 (Moderate)

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

### Engineering practices — 48/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 2 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| 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 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://cairry.github.io |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 14 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 41/100 (At risk)

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 — 38/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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 2 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 2/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 4 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | 6 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 6 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow 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 | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 33 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 53/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 158 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 10.4 / 35 | 3 affected: github.com/dgrijalva/jwt-go v3.2.0+incompatible (high 7.5), github.com/prometheus/prometheus v0.308.0 (high 7.5), golang.org/x/net v0.46.0 (moderate 6.5) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 29.1 / 40 | 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1925 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### 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 — 48/100 (At risk)

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 — 4/100 (Critical)

| 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 | partial | 3.7 / 40 | 7 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| 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 | 0/249 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## 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