Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-24 22:22 UTC

spejder / ms-vcard

Vcards for dine kontakter i Medlemsservice

GoMIT★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Oct 2021View on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

spejder/ms-vcard holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (82/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (43/100). It was last updated 23 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

spejderOrganization
5 followers14 public repossince Dec 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/spejder/ms-vcardv0.0.265-26523 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

82Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 23 days ago
20.1/36Commit cadence — 29/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 133 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year133
human_commit_share0.68
days_since_last_push23
active_weeks_last_year29
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 23 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.0.265
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release23
mean_days_between_releases2.9

Community & Adoption

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

43Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

56Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
28.7/30PR acceptance — 244/255 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs244
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs11
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
5.6/25Owner reach — 5 followers of spejder
20.6/25Track record — 14 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers5
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginspejder
public_repos14
account_age_days5,017

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 23 days ago
20/20Version history — 265 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/spejder/ms-vcard
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish23

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsexperimental, hacktoberfest
has_wikino
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?

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5/5SAST — SAST tool detected
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories7
affected_packages3
assessed_packages54
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 3
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 54 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
39.2/40Legible commit history — 50 of 68 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.735
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 32 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.32
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/7 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes26,842
source_files_sampled7
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
1contributors
133commits, last 12 months
23days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

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 · 2026-09-24 22:21 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-Tests15 out of 15 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 0/5 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate 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
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
10SASTSAST tool detected
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3Vulnerabilities7 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gobitbucket.org/long174/go-odoov1.12.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/emersion/go-vcardv0.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/crypto/x509roots/fallbackv0.0.0-20260113154411-7d0074ccc6f1go.mod
All dependencies 54

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 50 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gobitbucket.org/long174/go-odoov1.12.1direct
Gogithub.com/emersion/go-vcardv0.1.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/crypto/x509roots/fallbackv0.0.0-20260113154411-7d0074ccc6f1direct
Godario.cat/mergov1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/cloudflare/circlv1.6.3indirect
Gogithub.com/cyphar/filepath-securejoinv0.6.1indirect
Gogithub.com/emirpasic/godsv1.18.1indirect
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-git/gcfgv1.5.1-0.20230307220236-3a3c6141e376indirect
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-billy/v5v5.9.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-git/go-git/v5v5.19.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2v2.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcachev0.0.0-20241129210726-2c02b8208cf8indirect
Gogithub.com/goreleaser/chglogv0.7.4indirect
Gogithub.com/huandu/xstringsv1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/inconshreveable/mousetrapv1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/jbenet/go-contextv0.0.0-20150711004518-d14ea06fba99indirect
Gogithub.com/kevinburke/ssh_configv1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.18.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/cpuid/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/kolo/xmlrpcv0.0.0-20220921171641-a4b6fa1dd06bindirect
Gogithub.com/masterminds/goutilsv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/masterminds/semver/v3v3.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/masterminds/sprig/v3v3.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/microsoft/go-winiov0.6.2indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/copystructurev1.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/reflectwalkv1.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2v2.2.4indirect
Gogithub.com/pjbgf/sha1cdv0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/protonmail/go-cryptov1.1.6indirect
Gogithub.com/sagikazarmark/locaferov0.11.0indirect
Gogithub.com/sergi/go-diffv1.3.2-0.20230802210424-5b0b94c5c0d3indirect
Gogithub.com/shopspring/decimalv1.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/skeema/knownhostsv1.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/sourcegraph/concv0.3.1-0.20240121214520-5f936abd7ae8indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/aferov1.15.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/castv1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/cobrav1.10.2indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/pflagv1.0.10indirect
Gogithub.com/spf13/viperv1.21.0indirect
Gogithub.com/subosito/gotenvv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/xanzy/ssh-agentv0.3.3indirect
Gogitlab.com/digitalxero/go-conventional-commitv1.0.7indirect
Gogo.uber.org/nilawayv0.0.0-20260207005031-919d6741d2ebindirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.4indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.53.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.37.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.56.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.21.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.46.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.39.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.47.0indirect
Gogopkg.in/warnings.v0v0.1.2indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 54 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
github.com/klauspost/compressv1.18.0indirectunknown11.18.7
golang.org/x/cryptov0.53.0indirectunknown40.56.0
golang.org/x/modv0.37.0indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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