Public recordGood
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 11:01 UTC
rootly-io / rootly-go
A golang library for the Rootly API
rootly-io/rootly-go holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (85/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (37/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.
78
overall / 100Software 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.
78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
RootlyOrganization
41 followers70 public repossince Jan 2021
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/rootlyhq/rootly-gopoints to another repo — not scored | v0.11.1 | - | 17 | 4 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
85
Development activity
81Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 1 days ago |
| 16.6/36 | Commit cadence — 24/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 151 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 151 |
| human_commit_share | — |
| days_since_last_push | 1 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 24 |
Release discipline
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 18 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 4 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~15.4 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 18 |
| latest_release_tag | v0.11.1 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 4 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 15.4 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
37
Popularity & adoption
9Critical
How it's scored
| 4.9/60 | Stars — 3 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 2 forks |
| 3.9/15 | Watchers — 6 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 2 |
| stars | 3 |
| watchers | 6 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
70Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MIT) |
| 18/18 | 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 | yes |
| 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?
74
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 15.1/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 33% of commits |
| 9.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 7 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 7 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.33 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 36.8/42 | Issue resolution — 88% of issues closed |
| 25.6/30 | PR acceptance — 112/131 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 10.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 112 |
| open_issues | 1 |
| closed_issues | 7 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.875 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 19 |
| 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
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| 11.7/25 | Owner reach — 41 followers of rootlyhq |
| 23.9/25 | Track record — 70 public repos, account ~5 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 41 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | rootlyhq |
| public_repos | 70 |
| account_age_days | 1,994 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
71
Engineering practices
68Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 5 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
75Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://rootly.com |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 5 topics |
| 10/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | api, client, go, rootly, http |
| has_wiki | yes |
| homepage | https://rootly.com |
| docs_site | https://rootly.com |
| 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?
58
Security posture
58Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 5.2/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
| 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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 7.5/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 17 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 1 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 5.8 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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.
78
Agent context & guidance
75Good
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 0/40 | Legible commit history — no data |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | — |
| agent_instruction_files | CLAUDE.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 2,379 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
87Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile, mise.toml |
| 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 data |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no data |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | go.sum |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | Makefile, mise.toml |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | — |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Code legibility for models
88Excellent
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 42.8/55 | Manageable file sizes — 2/9 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 8,219,176 |
| source_files_sampled | 9 |
| oversized_source_files | 2 |
Machine-readable interfaces
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 40/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — .vendored/rootly-api/swagger.json |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/40 | Runnable examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | — |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| api_schema_files | .vendored/rootly-api/swagger.json |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.
Key facts
3GitHub stars
7contributors
151commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
18releases
2bus factor
1open issues
Gopackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- go package 'github.com/rootlyhq/rootly-go' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rootlyhq/rootly-go); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/rootlyhq/rootly-go/tools' from its registry
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 7 | Code-Review | Found 7/9 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 20 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 10 | Pinned-Dependencies | all dependencies are pinned |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| 0 | Signed-Releases | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 10 | Vulnerabilities | 0 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 5
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/getkin/kin-openapi | v0.140.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/google/uuid | v1.6.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/nullable | v1.2.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/runtime | v1.4.2 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/oapi-codegen/v2 | v2.7.1-0.20260622205726-5d02a03ac0e9 | tools/go.mod |
All dependencies 25
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 20 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/getkin/kin-openapi | v0.140.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/google/uuid | v1.6.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/nullable | v1.2.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/oapi-codegen/v2 | v2.7.1-0.20260622205726-5d02a03ac0e9 | direct |
| Go | github.com/oapi-codegen/runtime | v1.4.2 | direct |
| Go | github.com/apapsch/go-jsonmerge/v2 | v2.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/dprotaso/go-yit | v0.0.0-20220510233725-9ba8df137936 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-openapi/jsonpointer | v0.22.5 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-openapi/jsonpointer | v0.23.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-openapi/swag/jsonname | v0.25.5 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/go-openapi/swag/jsonname | v0.26.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/kr/pretty | v0.3.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/oasdiff/yaml | v0.1.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/oasdiff/yaml3 | v0.0.13 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/santhosh-tekuri/jsonschema/v6 | v6.0.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/speakeasy-api/jsonpath | v0.6.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/speakeasy-api/openapi | v1.23.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/vmware-labs/yaml-jsonpath | v0.3.2 | indirect |
| Go | go.yaml.in/yaml/v3 | v3.0.4 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/mod | v0.36.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sync | v0.20.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/text | v0.32.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/text | v0.37.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/tools | v0.45.0 | indirect |
| Go | gopkg.in/yaml.v3 | v3.0.1 | indirect |
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go.