Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 17:05 UTC

score-spec / score-go

Reference library for parsing and loading Score files

GoApache-2.0★ 33 stars⑂ 13 forkssince Oct 2022View on GitHub ↗

score-spec/score-go holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (61/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Excellent

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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ScoreOrganization

236 followers21 public repossince Sep 2022

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/score-spec/score-go	v1.20.0	-	51	2 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

92Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 2 days ago
28.4/36	Commit cadence — 41/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 159 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	159
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	2
active_weeks_last_year	41

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 48 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~14.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	48
latest_release_tag	v1.20.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	2
mean_days_between_releases	14.9

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?

61Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

33At Risk

How it's scored

24.4/60	Stars — 33 stars
9/25	Forks — 13 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	13
stars	33
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

92Excellent

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
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

75Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

43Weak

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 17 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	17
top_contributor_share	0.521

Issue & PR responsiveness

89Excellent

How it's scored

35/42	Issue resolution — 83% of issues closed
27.7/30	PR acceptance — 177/192 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	177
open_issues	2
closed_issues	10
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.833
closed_unmerged_prs	15
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

81Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
17.1/25	Owner reach — 236 followers of score-spec
17.4/25	Track record — 21 public repos, account ~3 yr old

Inputs used

followers	236
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	score-spec
public_repos	21
account_age_days	1,401

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 2 days ago
20/20	Version history — 51 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/score-spec/score-go
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

61Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 4 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 — 13 out of 13 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

50Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 2 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	go, score
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
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?

85Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

85Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: InProgress
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 0 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
3/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5	Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	8.5

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

64Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
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	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

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

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

84Excellent

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 — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/25 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	52,577
source_files_sampled	25
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 — samples

Inputs used

example_dirs	samples
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

33GitHub stars

17contributors

159commits, last 12 months

2days since last push

48releases

1bus factor

2open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.5 / 10

8.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 17:04 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
4	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2	CII-Best-Practices	badge detected: InProgress
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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 0 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
6	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 6
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 7

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2	`v2.5.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/opencontainers/image-spec	`v1.1.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/santhosh-tekuri/jsonschema/v5	`v5.3.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	go.mod
Go	oras.land/oras-go/v2	`v2.6.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter	`v1.1.4`	go.mod

All dependencies 23

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 16 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2	`v2.5.0`	direct
Go	github.com/olekukonko/tablewriter	`v1.1.4`	direct
Go	github.com/opencontainers/image-spec	`v1.1.1`	direct
Go	github.com/santhosh-tekuri/jsonschema/v5	`v5.3.1`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.11.1`	direct
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`v3.0.1`	direct
Go	oras.land/oras-go/v2	`v2.6.2`	direct
Go	github.com/cespare/xxhash/v2	`v2.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth	`v0.11.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2	`v2.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`v1.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/fatih/color	`v1.19.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/goccy/go-json	`v0.10.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-colorable	`v0.1.15`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.22`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-runewidth	`v0.0.24`	indirect
Go	github.com/olekukonko/cat	`v0.0.0-20250911104152-50322a0618f6`	indirect
Go	github.com/olekukonko/errors	`v1.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/olekukonko/ll	`v0.1.8`	indirect
Go	github.com/opencontainers/go-digest	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.22.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.47.0`	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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records