Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-18 09:37 UTC

snapp-incubator / health-exporter

A prometheus exporter which provides metrics to check remote endpoints health.

GoApache-2.0★ 19 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jun 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

snapp-incubator/health-exporter holds a health index of 6 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (52/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated 261 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

6
overall / 100
Critical

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.

6
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 36 is calibrated to 30 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

208 followers113 public repossince Aug 2021

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

29At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 261 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume1 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_year1
human_commit_share0.7
days_since_last_push261
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases13 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 261 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~166.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv1.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release261
mean_days_between_releases166.7
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?

35Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20.4/60Stars19 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars19
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
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_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
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?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 87% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.87
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
9.5/30PR acceptance37/117 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs37
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs80
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16.7/25Owner reach208 followers of snapp-incubator
22.9/25Track record113 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers208
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsnapp-incubator
public_repos113
account_age_days1,814
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

38Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgolang, kubernetes, prometheus-exporter, prometheus, snappcloud, monitoring, metrics, observability, oss
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

21At Risk · 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-Tests1 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not 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
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate4.3
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier20
security_posture_after_multiplier9
security_posture_before_jurisdiction43
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.
How it's scored
16.8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: golang.org/x/net 0.26.0 (moderate 6.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
34.4/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 607 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories22
affected_packages5
assessed_packages50
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 1, unknown 3
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 50 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
33.5/40Legible commit history44 of 70 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.629
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance30 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_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.3
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/14 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes4,974
source_files_sampled14
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

19GitHub stars
6contributors
1commits, last 12 months
261days since last push
13releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch go package 'gitlab.snapp.ir/snappcloud/health_exporter' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks
2Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

111222212022-072023-062024-05
Major 0Minor 2Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-18 09:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests1 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 2/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/miekg/dnsv1.1.61go.mod
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golangv1.19.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.26.0go.mod
Gok8s.io/apimachineryv0.30.2go.mod
Gok8s.io/client-gov0.30.2go.mod
Gok8s.io/klog/v2v2.130.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-ping/pingv1.1.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.7.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/go-ping/ping1.1.0direct
Gogithub.com/miekg/dns1.1.61direct
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_golang1.19.1direct
Gogolang.org/x/net0.26.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/sync0.7.0direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1direct
Gok8s.io/apimachinery0.30.2direct
Gok8s.io/client-go0.30.2direct
Gok8s.io/klog/v22.130.1direct
Gogithub.com/beorn7/perks1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v22.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.2-0.20180830191138-d8f796af33ccindirect
Gogithub.com/emicklei/go-restful/v33.11.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/logr1.4.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonpointer0.20.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonreference0.20.4indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/swag0.22.7indirect
Gogithub.com/gogo/protobuf1.3.2indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.4indirect
Gogithub.com/google/gnostic-models0.6.8indirect
Gogithub.com/google/gofuzz1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuid1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/josharian/intern1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/json-iterator/go1.1.12indirect
Gogithub.com/mailru/easyjson0.7.7indirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/concurrent0.0.0-20180306012644-bacd9c7ef1ddindirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/reflect21.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/munnerz/goautoneg0.0.0-20191010083416-a7dc8b61c822indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.1-0.20181226105442-5d4384ee4fb2indirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/client_model0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/common0.48.0indirect
Gogithub.com/prometheus/procfs0.12.0indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.9.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/mod0.18.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.18.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.21.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/term0.21.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.16.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/time0.5.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/tools0.22.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.8indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.33.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/inf.v00.9.1indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v22.4.0indirect
Gok8s.io/api0.30.2indirect
Gok8s.io/kube-openapi0.0.0-20240228011516-70dd3763d340indirect
Gok8s.io/utils0.0.0-20240102154912-e7106e64919eindirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/json0.0.0-20221116044647-bc3834ca7abdindirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/structured-merge-diff/v44.4.1indirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/yaml1.4.0indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 50 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/oauth20.18.0indirecthigh20.27.0
golang.org/x/net0.26.0directmoderate161.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/mod0.18.0indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/sys0.21.0indirectunknown10.44.0
golang.org/x/text0.16.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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