Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-23 09:25 UTC

shizhMSFT / distribution

The toolkit to pack, ship, store, and deliver container content

GoApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Oct 2021forkView on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

shizhMSFT/distribution holds a health index of 23 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (74/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 720 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

23
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.

23
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 42 is calibrated to 38 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Shiwei ZhangPersonal account
46 followers96 public repossince Sep 2017@Microsoft

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/distribution/distribution/v3points to another repo — not scoredv3.1.1-982 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 720 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push720
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases46 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,743 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~88.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv2.7.1
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,743
mean_days_between_releases88.6
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
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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?

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 54 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.236
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 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.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
12/25Owner reach46 followers of shizhMSFT
25/25Track record96 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers46
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginshizhMSFT
public_repos96
account_age_days3,226
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 54 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities50 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.8
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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history79 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.859
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, vendor/github.com/distribution/reference/Makefile, vendor/github.com/felixge/httpsnoop/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gorilla/handlers/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gorilla/mux/Makefile, vendor/github.com/jmespath/go-jmespath/Makefile, vendor/github.com/matttproud/golang_protobuf_extensions/pbutil/Makefile, vendor/github.com/prometheus/procfs/Makefile, vendor/github.com/redis/go-redis/v9/Makefile, vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile, vendor/go.opencensus.io/Makefile, vendor/go.opentelemetry.io/otel/Makefile, vendor/google.golang.org/grpc/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance8 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, vendor/github.com/distribution/reference/Makefile, vendor/github.com/felixge/httpsnoop/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gorilla/handlers/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gorilla/mux/Makefile, vendor/github.com/jmespath/go-jmespath/Makefile, vendor/github.com/matttproud/golang_protobuf_extensions/pbutil/Makefile, vendor/github.com/prometheus/procfs/Makefile, vendor/github.com/redis/go-redis/v9/Makefile, vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile, vendor/go.opencensus.io/Makefile, vendor/go.opentelemetry.io/otel/Makefile, vendor/google.golang.org/grpc/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.08
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
53.3/55Manageable file sizes8/261 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes1,402,149
source_files_sampled261
oversized_source_files8
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)vendor/github.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2/apierror/internal/proto/custom_error.proto, vendor/github.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2/apierror/internal/proto/error.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/app_identity/app_identity_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/base/api_base.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/datastore/datastore_v3.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/log/log_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/modules/modules_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/remote_api/remote_api.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/socket/socket_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/urlfetch/urlfetch_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/protobuf/types/gofeaturespb/go_features.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesrecipes
Inputs used
example_dirsrecipes
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesvendor/github.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2/apierror/internal/proto/custom_error.proto, vendor/github.com/googleapis/gax-go/v2/apierror/internal/proto/error.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/app_identity/app_identity_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/base/api_base.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/datastore/datastore_v3.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/log/log_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/modules/modules_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/remote_api/remote_api.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/socket/socket_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/appengine/internal/urlfetch/urlfetch_service.proto, vendor/google.golang.org/protobuf/types/gofeaturespb/go_features.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
99contributors
0commits, last 12 months
720days since last push
46releases
4bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • go package 'github.com/distribution/distribution/v3' points at a different repository (https://github.com/distribution/distribution); excluded from ecosystem scoring
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-23 09:24 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 54 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is 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
10SASTSAST tool detected: CodeQL
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities50 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 37
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gocloud.google.com/go/storagev1.30.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/AdaLogics/go-fuzz-headersv0.0.0-20221103172237-443f56ff4ba8go.mod
Gogithub.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azcorev1.11.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/azidentityv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/Azure/azure-sdk-for-go/sdk/storage/azblobv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-gov1.48.10go.mod
Gogithub.com/bshuster-repo/logrus-logstash-hookv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/coreos/go-systemd/v22v22.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/distribution/referencev0.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/go-eventsv0.0.0-20190806004212-e31b211e4f1cgo.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/go-metricsv0.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-jose/go-jose/v4v4.0.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/handlersv1.5.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/gorilla/muxv1.8.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/golang-lru/arc/v2v2.0.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.17.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/mapstructurev1.5.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/go-digestv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/opencontainers/image-specv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/redis/go-redis/extra/redisotel/v9v9.0.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/redis/go-redis/v9v9.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/sirupsen/logrusv1.9.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.8.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.9.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/exporters/autoexportv0.46.1go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/net/http/otelhttpv0.46.1go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.21.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/stdout/stdouttracev1.21.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.21.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.21.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.24.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.26.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.11.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/apiv0.126.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v2v2.4.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.7.0go.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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsGo.