# scality/node-warden-operator — health index 60/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository scality/node-warden-operator by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/scality/node-warden-operator
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/scality/node-warden-operator
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/scality/node-warden-operator/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/s/scality/node-warden-operator.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.17.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 72/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 33/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 56/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 74/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 83/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | A Kubernetes operator that reacts to node conditions and remediates them, driven by a generic NodeRemediationPolicy CRD |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 1 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-07-07 |
| Last push | 2026-07-20 |
| Latest release | v1.0.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 50 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | controller-runtime, distroless, go, golang, k8s, kubebuilder, kubernetes, kubernetes-operator, node-health, operator, rootless, taint, node-remediation |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/scality/node-warden-operator | v1.0.0 | — |

## Vitality — 72/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 1 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 1.4 / 36 | 2/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 15.3 / 18 | 50 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 3 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 4 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~0.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 33/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 1 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 56/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 22/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 5.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 76% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 4.1 / 13.5 | 3 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | not met | 0 / 46.8 | 0% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | met | 38.2 / 38.2 | 16/16 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 15.2 / 25 | 129 followers of scality |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 174 public repos, account ~15 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 5 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 12 / 20 | 3 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 74/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 6 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yml |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 13 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 62/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 53/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 4.5 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 1.5 / 7.5 | 8 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 92 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 83/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 99/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yml |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 9 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/29 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | samples |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt