Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 11:08 UTC

segmentio / go-audit

go-audit is an alternative to the auditd daemon that ships with many distros

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jul 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

segmentio/go-audit holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (60/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 1194 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

22
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

22
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 28 is calibrated to 22 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Segment BoneyardOrganization
25 followers519 public repossince Feb 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/slackhq/go-auditpoints to another repo — not scoredv1.2.2-627 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

13Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical
How it's scored
0/36Push recency — last push 1,194 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push1,194
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

32At Risk
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,219 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — cadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv1.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,219
mean_days_between_releases—
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 2 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

41Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

41Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 58% of commits
12.2/13.5Contributor breadth — 9 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled9
top_contributor_share0.582

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

82Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
10.2/25Owner reach — 25 followers of segment-boneyard
25/25Track record — 519 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers25
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginsegment-boneyard
public_repos519
account_age_days4,159
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

25At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
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 — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 87 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate2.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, 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.

60Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
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 — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes22,661
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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

0GitHub stars
9contributors
0commits, last 12 months
1,194days since last push
1releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • go package 'github.com/slackhq/go-audit' points at a different repository (https://github.com/slackhq/go-audit); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.5 / 10
2.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 11:08 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities87 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 5
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/docker/dockerv1.4.2-0.20190522125255-080524218ed4go.mod
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcachev0.0.0-20191027212112-611e8accdfc9go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv0.0.0-20170217163817-7538d73b4eb9go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.2.2go.mod
Gogopkg.in/Graylog2/go-gelf.v2v2.0.0-20180326133423-4dbb9d721348go.mod
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 5 direct and 30 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/docker/docker1.4.2-0.20190522125255-080524218ed4direct
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcache0.0.0-20191027212112-611e8accdfc9direct
Gogithub.com/spf13/viper0.0.0-20170217163817-7538d73b4eb9direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.2.2direct
Gogopkg.in/graylog2/go-gelf.v22.0.0-20180326133423-4dbb9d721348direct
Gogithub.com/azure/go-ansiterm0.0.0-20170929234023-d6e3b3328b78indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/distribution2.7.1+incompatibleindirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-connections0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/docker/go-units0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotify0.0.0-20160816051541-f12c6236fe7bindirect
Gogithub.com/gogo/protobuf1.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gorilla/mux1.7.3indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/hcl0.0.0-20160902165219-99df0eb941ddindirect
Gogithub.com/kr/fs0.0.0-20131111012553-2788f0dbd169indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/pretty0.0.0-20160823170715-cfb55aafdaf3indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/text0.0.0-20160504234017-7cafcd837844indirect
Gogithub.com/magiconair/properties0.0.0-20160908093658-0723e352fa35indirect
Gogithub.com/microsoft/go-winio0.4.14indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/mapstructure0.0.0-20160808181253-ca63d7c062eeindirect
Gogithub.com/morikuni/aec1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/go-digest1.0.0-rc1indirect
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/image-spec1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-buffruneio0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml0.0.0-20160906202557-31055c2ff0bbindirect
Gogithub.com/pkg/sftp0.0.0-20160908100035-8197a2e58073indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/afero0.0.0-20160821083612-20500e2abd0dindirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cast0.0.0-20160730092037-e31f36ffc91aindirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/jwalterweatherman0.0.0-20160311093646-33c24e77fb80indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflag0.0.0-20160911194638-7b17cc4658efindirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.0.0-20191209160850-c0dbc17a3553indirect
Gogolang.org/x/time0.0.0-20191024005414-555d28b269f0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.25.1indirect
Gogopkg.in/check.v11.0.0-20180628173108-788fd7840127indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v22.0.0-20160912165603-31c299268d30indirect
Gogotest.tools2.2.0+incompatibleindirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with segmentio/go-audit. Read them side by side →

100prometheus/prometheusThe Prometheus monitoring system and time series database.Exceptional100wandb/wandbThe AI developer platform. Use Weights & Biases to train and fine-tune models, and manage models from experimentation to production.Exceptional100hashicorp/consulConsul is a distributed, highly available, and data center aware solution to connect and configure applications across dynamic, distributed infrastructure.Exceptional100mattermost/mattermostMattermost is an open source platform for secure collaboration across the entire software development lifecycle..Exceptional100envoyproxy/envoyCloud-native high-performance edge/middle/service proxyExceptional100pingcap/tidbTiDB is built for agentic workloads that grow unpredictably, with ACID guarantees and native support for transactions, analytics, and vector search. No data silos. No noisy neighbors. No infrastructure ceiling.Exceptional

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.