Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 14:01 UTC

rabbitmq / rabbitmq-amqp-go-client

Golang RabbitMQ client for AMQP 1.0

GoApache-2.0★ 66 stars⑂ 11 forkssince Sep 2024View on GitHub ↗

rabbitmq/rabbitmq-amqp-go-client holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (91/100) and lowest on Security (1/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Good

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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RabbitMQOrganization · verified domain

2,158 followers256 public repossince Jun 2009

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-amqp-go-client	v1.4.0	-	17	19 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

88Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

80Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 3 days ago
19.4/36	Commit cadence — 28/52 weeks with commits
16.7/18	Commit volume — 71 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data

Inputs used

commits_last_year	71
human_commit_share	0.96
days_since_last_push	3
active_weeks_last_year	28

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~32.8 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	17
latest_release_tag	v1.4.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	5
mean_days_between_releases	32.8

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

42Weak

How it's scored

29.4/60	Stars — 66 stars
8.3/25	Forks — 11 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	11
stars	66
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
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?

76Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

30At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
12.2/13.5	Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	9
top_contributor_share	0.739

Issue & PR responsiveness

90Excellent

How it's scored

35.4/42	Issue resolution — 84% of issues closed
29.3/30	PR acceptance — 87/89 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data

Inputs used

merged_prs	87
open_issues	6
closed_issues	32
prs_merged_7d	1
prs_decided_7d	1
prs_merged_30d	2
prs_decided_30d	2
issue_closed_ratio	0.842
closed_unmerged_prs	2
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

99Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
24/25	Owner reach — 2,158 followers of rabbitmq
25/25	Track record — 256 public repos, account ~17 yr old

Inputs used

followers	2,158
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	rabbitmq
public_repos	256
account_age_days	6,297

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 19 days ago
20/20	Version history — 17 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-amqp-go-client
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	19

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	amqp-client, amqp10, rabbitmq, amqp1-0
has_wiki	yes
homepage	https://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
docs_site	https://www.rabbitmq.com/client-libraries/amqp-client-libraries
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

1Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

1Critical

How it's scored

0/30	Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25	Dependabot config
0/25	Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20	CodeQL workflow

Inputs used

source	file_signals
lockfiles	go.sum
manifests	go.mod
has_codeql_workflow	no
has_security_policy	no
has_dependabot_config	no

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

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.

91Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 75 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.781
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	6,454

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

88Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.1
toolchain_manifests	docs/examples/otel_metrics/go.mod, go.mod, tests/otelmetrics/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.04

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/80 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	48,790
source_files_sampled	80
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

66GitHub stars

9contributors

71commits, last 12 months

3days since last push

17releases

1bus factor

6open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
OSV advisory lookup failed: [Errno 101] Network is unreachable
OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-amqp-go-client: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-09-14T14:01:12Z. Please include `D60A:39FD34:10B5BA2:103CBAE:6AA7FE25` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 11 ⇿

0Stars

11Forks

16Releases

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 1Minor 10Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/Azure/go-amqp	`v1.7.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5	`v5.3.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gorilla/websocket	`v1.5.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2	`v2.32.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/onsi/gomega	`v1.42.0`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel	`v1.44.0`	go.mod
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric	`v1.44.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 26 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/azure/go-amqp	`v1.7.0`	direct
Go	github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v5	`v5.3.1`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	direct
Go	github.com/gorilla/websocket	`v1.5.3`	direct
Go	github.com/onsi/ginkgo/v2	`v2.32.0`	direct
Go	github.com/onsi/gomega	`v1.42.0`	direct
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel	`v1.44.0`	direct
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/metric	`v1.44.0`	direct
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-logr/logr	`v1.4.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-logr/stdr	`v1.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-task/slim-sprig/v3	`v3.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-cmp	`v0.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/pprof	`v0.0.0-20260604005048-7023385849c0`	indirect
Go	github.com/kr/pretty	`v0.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/masterminds/semver/v3	`v3.5.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rogpeppe/go-internal	`v1.14.1`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdk	`v1.2.1`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/stdout/stdoutmetric	`v1.44.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk	`v1.44.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk/metric	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk/metric	`v1.44.0`	indirect
Go	go.opentelemetry.io/otel/trace	`v1.44.0`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/automaxprocs	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.4`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/mod	`v0.37.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/net	`v0.56.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.21.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.46.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.38.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/tools	`v0.46.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/check.v1	`v1.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6c`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: OSV advisory lookup failed: [Errno 101] Network is unreachable

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.

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 — Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records