Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-31 11:59 UTC

pberkel / caddy-storage-redis

Implements a Caddy storage backend module for Redis supporting Single (Standalone), Cluster, or Sentinal (Failover) Redis server configurations.

GoApache-2.0★ 93 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Oct 2023View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

pberkel/caddy-storage-redis holds a health index of 54 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (46/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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.

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)

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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Pieter BerkelPersonal account

8 followers5 public repossince May 2012

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/pberkel/caddy-storage-redis	v1.8.1	-	11	10 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

49Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 10 days ago
6.9/36	Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
12.1/18	Commit volume — 21 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	21
human_commit_share	0.78
days_since_last_push	10
active_weeks_last_year	10

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~105 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	11
latest_release_tag	v1.8.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	10
mean_days_between_releases	105

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?

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak

How it's scored

31.9/60	Stars — 93 stars
9.8/25	Forks — 16 forks
1.7/15	Watchers — 3 watchers

Inputs used

forks	16
stars	93
watchers	3
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

24At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.821

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
23.2/30	PR acceptance — 24/31 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2

Inputs used

merged_prs	24
open_issues	0
closed_issues	11
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	7
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

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

Ownership & stewardship

43Weak

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.9/25	Owner reach — 8 followers of pberkel
17.7/25	Track record — 5 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	8
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	pberkel
public_repos	5
account_age_days	5,204

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 10 days ago
20/20	Version history — 11 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/pberkel/caddy-storage-redis
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

46Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

50Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
2/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 3 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 3 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 35 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

61Moderate

How it's scored

12.3/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2 v2.11.1 (high 8.1)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
33.3/40	No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 142 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	57
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	54
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 1, high 1, moderate 2, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 54 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.5/40	Legible commit history — 15 of 39 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
legible_history_share	0.385
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

64Moderate

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 50
8/8	Automated maintenance — 11 of the last 50 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.22

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/10 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	24,805
source_files_sampled	10
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

93GitHub stars

8contributors

21commits, last 12 months

10days since last push

11releases

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 ★ / 16 ⇿

0Stars

16Forks

8Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 7Patch 1

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10

4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-31 11:59 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
1	CI-Tests	3 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2	Code-Review	Found 6/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
0	Vulnerabilities	35 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/alicebob/miniredis/v2	`v2.35.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/bsm/redislock	`v0.9.4`	go.mod
Go	github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2	`v2.11.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/caddyserver/certmagic	`v0.25.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/redis/go-redis/v9	`v9.18.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod
Go	go.uber.org/zap	`v1.27.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 46 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/alicebob/miniredis/v2	`v2.35.0`	direct
Go	github.com/bsm/redislock	`v0.9.4`	direct
Go	github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2	`v2.11.1`	direct
Go	github.com/caddyserver/certmagic	`v0.25.2`	direct
Go	github.com/redis/go-redis/v9	`v9.18.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	go.uber.org/zap	`v1.27.1`	direct
Go	github.com/aryann/difflib	`v0.0.0-20210328193216-ff5ff6dc229b`	indirect
Go	github.com/beorn7/perks	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/caddyserver/zerossl	`v0.1.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/v2	`v2.0.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/dgryski/go-rendezvous	`v0.0.0-20200823014737-9f7001d12a5f`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/kimmachinegun/automemlimit	`v0.7.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/klauspost/cpuid/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/libdns/libdns	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mholt/acmez/v3	`v3.1.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/miekg/dns	`v1.1.72`	indirect
Go	github.com/munnerz/goautoneg	`v0.0.0-20191010083416-a7dc8b61c822`	indirect
Go	github.com/pbnjay/memory	`v0.0.0-20210728143218-7b4eea64cf58`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.23.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_model	`v0.6.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/common	`v0.67.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/prometheus/procfs	`v0.19.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/quic-go/qpack	`v0.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/quic-go/quic-go	`v0.59.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal	`v1.11.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/russross/blackfriday/v2	`v2.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	indirect
Go	github.com/yuin/gopher-lua	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/zeebo/blake3	`v0.2.4`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/atomic	`v1.11.0`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/automaxprocs	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/multierr	`v1.11.0`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/zap/exp	`v0.3.0`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v2	`v2.4.3`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.4`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.48.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/crypto/x509roots/fallback	`v0.0.0-20260213171211-a408498e5541`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.33.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.50.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.19.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.41.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/term	`v0.40.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.34.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.14.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.42.0`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/protobuf	`v1.36.11`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 54 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.48.0`	indirect	critical	27	`0.52.0`
github.com/caddyserver/caddy/v2	`v2.11.1`	direct	high	16	`2.11.4`
github.com/quic-go/quic-go	`v0.59.0`	indirect	moderate	2	`0.59.1`
golang.org/x/net	`v0.50.0`	indirect	moderate	10	`1.26.3`
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.41.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`
golang.org/x/text	`v0.34.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.39.0`

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Related records