Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 05:00 UTC

slackhq / gh-stacked-diff

GoApache-2.0★ 6 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolTerminal interfaceLibraryhow this is determined

slackhq/gh-stacked-diff holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (76/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated 34 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SlackOrganization · verified domain
1,070 followers74 public repossince Mar 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/slackhq/gh-stacked-diff/v2v2.1.9-1258 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 34 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume124 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year124
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push34
active_weeks_last_year14
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases12 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 58 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tagv2.1.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release58
mean_days_between_releases12.9

Community & Adoption

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

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
11.3/60Stars6 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars6
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

69Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 97% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.968
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
29.7/30PR acceptance115/116 decided PRs merged
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_prs115
open_issues0
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21.8/25Owner reach1,070 followers of slackhq
25/25Track record74 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,070
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginslackhq
public_repos74
account_age_days4,570

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 58 days ago
20/20Version history12 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/slackhq/gh-stacked-diff/v2
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish58

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6/7.5Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsCLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history92 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.92
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,621
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency 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_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/94 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes25,681
source_files_sampled94
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

6GitHub stars
3contributors
124commits, last 12 months
34days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 05:00 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubblesv0.20.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubbleteav1.3.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipglossv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/ansiv0.8.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/fatih/colorv1.18.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/hairyhenderson/go-codeownersv0.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.8.4go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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