Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-10 01:46 UTC

routerarchitects / ow-common-mods

Common service discovery, RPC, and shared modules for Mango Cloud and the OpenWiFi cloud platform.

GoAGPL-3.0★ 2 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Dec 2025View on GitHub ↗

routerarchitects/ow-common-mods holds a health index of 39 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (68/100) and lowest on Vitality (27/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

39
overall / 100
Weak

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.

39
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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Router ArchitectsOrganization
23 followers54 public repossince Oct 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ow-common-mods/servicerpcv0.3.0-357 days ago
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ow-common-mods/servicediscoveryv0.2.0-2143 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

27At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 22 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence — 7/52 weeks with commits
11.1/18Commit volume — 16 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year16
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
0/27Ships releases — no releases published
0/36Release recency — no releases
0/27Release cadence — no releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

36Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 2 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars2
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.4
How it's scored
32.7/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 16/16 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 14/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs16
open_issues2
closed_issues7
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.778
closed_unmerged_prs0
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9.9/25Owner reach — 23 followers of routerarchitects
16.4/25Track record — 54 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginrouterarchitects
public_repos54
account_age_days679
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/routerarchitects/ow-common-mods/servicerpc, github.com/routerarchitects/ow-common-mods/servicediscovery
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://www.mangowifi.cloud/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscloud-controller, managed-wifi, mango-cloud, microservices, openlan, openwifi, ucentral
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.mangowifi.cloud/
docs_sitehttps://www.mangowifi.cloud/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
4.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 14/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — fiber/middleware/go.mod, fiber/system-routes/go.mod, servicediscovery/examples/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifestsfiber/middleware/go.mod, fiber/system-routes/go.mod, servicediscovery/examples/go.mod, servicediscovery/go.mod, servicerpc/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/27 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes13,544
source_files_sampled27
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

2GitHub stars
4contributors
16commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
0releases
2bus factor
2open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212026-032026-052026-07
OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-10 01:46 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 14/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained1 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities40 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ra-common-mods/buildinfov0.1.0servicediscovery/go.mod
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ra-common-mods/kafkav0.1.0servicediscovery/go.mod
Gogithub.com/gofiber/fiber/v3v3.1.0servicerpc/go.mod
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ow-common-mods/servicediscoveryv0.2.0servicerpc/go.mod
Gogithub.com/routerarchitects/ra-common-mods/apperrorv0.2.0servicerpc/go.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.

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.