Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-25 17:39 UTC

sebastienrousseau / corralctl

Multi-forge git repository organiser & MCP server for AI coding agents. Clones & structures repos from GitHub, GitLab, Gitea, Forgejo, Codeberg & Bitbucket by visibility & language, with fast cross-repo code & symbol search, worktree tooling, and TUI graph.

GoGPL-3.0★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindTerminal interfaceMCP serverCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

#developer-tools #repository-management #github #macos #cli #git #tui #ai-agents #bitbucket #codeberg #forgejo #gitea #gitlab #golang #mcp #model-context-protocol #code-search #mcp-server #symbol-search #worktrees

sebastienrousseau/corralctl holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (96/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated today. 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

Sebastien RousseauPersonal account

165 followers244 public repossince Jan 2012

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/sebastienrousseau/corralctl	v0.0.52	-	48	12 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

78Good

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 0 days ago
13.8/36	Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
18/18	Commit volume — 511 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	511
human_commit_share	0.9
days_since_last_push	0
active_weeks_last_year	20

Release discipline

100Exceptional

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 48 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 12 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~1 days
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 10 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	48
latest_release_tag	v0.0.52
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	12
mean_days_between_releases	1

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 0 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	1
watchers	0
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 (GPL-3.0)
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	9
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

78Good

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.2/30	PR acceptance — 160/183 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	160
open_issues	0
closed_issues	1
prs_merged_7d	2
prs_decided_7d	2
prs_merged_30d	19
prs_decided_30d	19
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	23
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

64Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16/25	Owner reach — 165 followers of sebastienrousseau
25/25	Track record — 244 public repos, account ~14 yr old

Inputs used

followers	165
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	sebastienrousseau
public_repos	244
account_age_days	5,381

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 12 days ago
20/20	Version history — 48 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/sebastienrousseau/corralctl
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	12

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 15 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yml
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
20/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

90Excellent

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://doc.corrallib.com/
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 20 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	developer-tools, repository-management, github, macos, cli, git, tui, ai-agents, bitbucket, codeberg, forgejo, gitea, gitlab, golang, mcp, model-context-protocol, code-search, mcp-server, symbol-search, worktrees
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://doc.corrallib.com/
docs_site	https://doc.corrallib.com/
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

86Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

83Excellent

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5	CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
7.5/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 10 signed artifacts.
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	18
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	0
scorecard_aggregate	8.3

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	48
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 48 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.

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.

96Exceptional · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 90 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	5,034

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8	Automated maintenance — 5 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned

Inputs used

has_nix	yes
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.18
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.05

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/269 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	59,754
source_files_sampled	269
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
20/20	MCP server
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	yes
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1GitHub stars

1contributors

511commits, last 12 months

0days since last push

48releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.3 / 10

8.3aggregate

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 · 2026-10-25 17:39 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10	CI-Tests	17 out of 17 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
0	Code-Review	Found 0/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	30 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
10	Pinned-Dependencies	all dependencies are pinned
10	SAST	SAST tool detected
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
10	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 10 signed artifacts.
10	Token-Permissions	GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbles	`v1.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea	`v1.3.10`	go.mod
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss	`v1.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.10.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/go-github/v90	`v90.0.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.24`	go.mod
Go	github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk	`v1.8.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	go.mod
Go	go.uber.org/goleak	`v1.3.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.49.0`	go.mod
Go	howett.net/plist	`v1.0.1`	go.mod

All dependencies 48

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 36 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbles	`v1.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea	`v1.3.10`	direct
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss	`v1.1.0`	direct
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.10.1`	direct
Go	github.com/google/go-github/v90	`v90.0.0`	direct
Go	github.com/mattn/go-isatty	`v0.0.24`	direct
Go	github.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdk	`v1.8.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	direct
Go	go.uber.org/goleak	`v1.3.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.49.0`	direct
Go	howett.net/plist	`v1.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/aymanbagabas/go-osc52/v2	`v2.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/colorprofile	`v0.4.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/harmonica	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/ansi	`v0.11.8`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/cellbuf	`v0.0.15`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/golden	`v0.0.0-20260629091435-9c70f75e26a4`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/term	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth	`v0.11.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2	`v2.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/erikgeiser/coninput	`v0.0.0-20211004153227-1c3628e74d0f`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/go-querystring	`v1.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/google/jsonschema-go	`v0.4.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorful	`v1.4.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-localereader	`v0.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-runewidth	`v0.0.28`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/ansi	`v0.0.0-20230316100256-276c6243b2f6`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/cancelreader	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/termenv	`v0.16.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/rivo/uniseg	`v0.4.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/segmentio/asm	`v1.2.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/segmentio/encoding	`v0.5.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/xo/terminfo	`v1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/yosida95/uritemplate/v3	`v3.0.2`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`v0.0.0-20260611194520-c48552f49976`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/oauth2	`v0.36.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.22.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.41.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/time	`v0.15.0`	indirect
PyPI	attrs	`26.1.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema	`4.26.0`	indirect
PyPI	jsonschema-specifications	`2025.9.1`	indirect
PyPI	pyyaml	`6.0.3`	indirect
PyPI	referencing	`0.37.0`	indirect
PyPI	rpds-py	`2026.6.3`	indirect
PyPI	typing-extensions	`4.16.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 48 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

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 v0.34.0 — 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

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records