Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-18 23:30 UTC

richardwooding / c2pa-mcp

CLI and MCP server for C2PA / Content Credentials provenance: report what a file claims, or fully verify it — COSE signature, certificate chain, hash bindings, RFC 3161 timestamp. Reads JPEG, PNG, WebP, GIF, TIFF/DNG, HEIC, AVIF, SVG, MP4, MOV, AVI, WAV, MP3 and PDF. Wraps github.com/richardwooding/c2pa.

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverCommand-line toolhow this is determined
#ai-generated-content#c2pa#claude#cli#content-authenticity#content-credentials#cose#go#golang#jpeg#jumbf#mcp#mcp-server#model-context-protocol#mp3#mp4#pdf#png#provenance#webp

richardwooding/c2pa-mcp holds a health index of 63 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

63
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.

63
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Richard WoodingPersonal account
31 followers85 public repossince Aug 2010spandigital.com

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/richardwooding/c2pa-mcpv0.6.1-1110 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

68Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
14.8/18Commit volume — 43 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year43
human_commit_share0.837
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 11 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~5.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count11
latest_release_tagv0.6.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases5.5

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, goreportcard.com, pkg.go.dev, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

53Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

60Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution — 60% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance — 33/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs33
open_issues2
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d24
prs_decided_30d24
issue_closed_ratio0.6
closed_unmerged_prs4
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.

Ownership & stewardship

57Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.8/25Owner reach — 31 followers of richardwooding
25/25Track record — 85 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers31
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginrichardwooding
public_repos85
account_age_days5,870
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history — 11 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/richardwooding/c2pa-mcp
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

84Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 20 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai-generated-content, c2pa, claude, cli, content-authenticity, content-credentials, cose, go, golang, jpeg, jumbf, mcp, mcp-server, model-context-protocol, mp3, mp4, pdf, png, provenance, webp
has_wikiyes
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?

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

47Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.7

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.

79Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 36 of 36 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes18,498

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

85Excellent
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 30 of the last 43 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 7 of the last 43 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.698
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.163

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/16 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes22,037
source_files_sampled16
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

33At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
43commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
11releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-18 23:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests26 out of 26 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 5 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/alecthomas/kongv1.16.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/iscc/iscc-lib/packages/gov0.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.7.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/richardwooding/c2pav0.22.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/richardwooding/fingerprintv0.4.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/imagev0.41.0go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with richardwooding/c2pa-mcp. Read them side by side →

100stacklok/toolhiveToolHive is an enterprise-grade platform for running and managing Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers.Exceptional98deepnote/deepnoteDeepnote is a drop-in replacement for Jupyter with an AI-first design, sleek UI, new blocks, and native data integrations. Use Python, R, and SQL locally in your favorite IDE, then scale to Deepnote cloud for real-time collaboration, Deepnote agent, and deployable data apps. https://deepnote.com/Exceptional98n8n-io/n8nFair-code workflow automation platform with native AI capabilities. Combine visual building with custom code, self-host or cloud, 400+ integrations.Exceptional98awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional97Observal/ObservalObserval is self-hosted registry for your coding agent extensions with a built in insight engine. Setup Observal, define the scope and share your Skills, MCPs and Agents with your peers.Exceptional97better-auth/better-authThe most comprehensive authentication frameworkExceptional

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.