Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 02:45 UTC

snyk / snyk-iac-capture

GoApache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationLibraryhow this is determined

snyk/snyk-iac-capture holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (90/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated 50 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SnykOrganization · verified domain
1,969 followers240 public repossince Jun 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/snyk/snyk-iac-capturev0.7.6-2250 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

47Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 50 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
7.6/18Commit volume6 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year6
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push50
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases20 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 128 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~117.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv0.7.5
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release128
mean_days_between_releases117.6

Community & Adoption

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

50Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
9.1/15Watchers44 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers44
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicessnyk.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

90Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.6/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.308
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance37/37 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 12/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
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_prs0
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
20/20Verified domain
23.7/25Owner reach1,969 followers of snyk
25/25Track record240 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,969
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginsnyk
public_repos240
account_age_days4,111

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 50 days ago
20/20Version history22 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/snyk/snyk-iac-capture
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish50

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests3 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

30At Risk
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests3 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 12/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Token-Permissions. 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.

70Good · 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 history88 of 88 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/go-multierror/Makefile, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/hcl/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 88
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/go-multierror/Makefile, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/hcl/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/errwrap/go.mod, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/go-multierror/go.mod, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/go-uuid/go.mod, licenses/github.com/hashicorp/hcl/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/71 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes22,053
source_files_sampled71
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

3GitHub stars
13contributors
6commits, last 12 months
50days since last push
20releases
3bus 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 4.0 / 10
4.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 02:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2CI-Tests3 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 12/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities43 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/bmatcuk/doublestar/v4v4.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-multierrorv1.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/snyk/go-application-frameworkv0.0.0-20221208153222-02f242b16d48go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.5go.mod
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.15.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.8.1go.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.