Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-24 21:38 UTC

steffakasid / awsclean

GoApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2022View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

steffakasid/awsclean holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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)

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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Steffen RumpfPersonal account

9 followers27 public repossince May 2018DB Systel GmbH

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/steffakasid/awsclean	v1.14.2	-	7	22 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

87Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

84Excellent

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
22.2/36	Commit cadence — 32/52 weeks with commits
17.5/18	Commit volume — 88 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data

Inputs used

commits_last_year	88
human_commit_share	0.11
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	32

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 36 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 22 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~47.3 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	36
latest_release_tag	v1.14.2
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	22
mean_days_between_releases	47.3

Community & Adoption

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

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

0/60	Stars — 1 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 1 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	1
watchers	1
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

19Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 83% of commits
4.1/13.5	Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	3
top_contributor_share	0.831

Issue & PR responsiveness

80Excellent

How it's scored

28/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
29.5/30	PR acceptance — 495/503 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data

Inputs used

merged_prs	495
open_issues	1
closed_issues	2
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.667
closed_unmerged_prs	8
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
7.2/25	Owner reach — 9 followers of steffakasid
22.5/25	Track record — 27 public repos, account ~8 yr old

Inputs used

followers	9
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	steffakasid
public_repos	27
account_age_days	3,059

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 22 days ago
20/20	Version history — 7 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/steffakasid/awsclean
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

60Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

30At Risk

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	no

Security

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

42Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

27At Risk

How it's scored

0/30	Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25	Dependabot config
0/25	Dependency lockfiles — published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
20/20	CodeQL workflow

Inputs used

source	file_signals
lockfiles	go.sum
manifests	go.mod
has_codeql_workflow	yes
has_security_policy	no
has_dependabot_config	no

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	2
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	37
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	unknown 2
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 37 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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	—
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

71Good

How it's scored

12.6/18	One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8	Automated maintenance — 89 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.89

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/22 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	26,967
source_files_sampled	22
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

1GitHub stars

3contributors

88commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

36releases

1bus factor

1open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/steffakasid/awsclean: run: repo unreachable: Get "https://api.github.com/repos/steffakasid/awsclean": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: dial tcp: lookup api.github.com on 127.0.0.11:53: server misbehaving); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2	`v1.47.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config	`v1.33.5`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/cloudtrail	`v1.65.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/ec2	`v1.336.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rodaine/table	`v1.4.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/viper	`v1.21.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/steffakasid/eslog	`v0.3.8`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/xhit/go-str2duration/v2	`v2.2.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2	`v1.47.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config	`v1.33.5`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/cloudtrail	`v1.65.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/ec2	`v1.336.0`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	direct
Go	github.com/rodaine/table	`v1.4.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.10`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/viper	`v1.21.0`	direct
Go	github.com/steffakasid/eslog	`v0.3.8`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.12.1`	direct
Go	github.com/xhit/go-str2duration/v2	`v2.2.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/credentials	`v1.20.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/ec2/imds	`v1.20.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/configsources	`v1.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/endpoints/v2	`v2.8.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/v4a	`v1.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/accept-encoding	`v1.13.19`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/presigned-url	`v1.14.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/signin	`v1.10.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sso	`v1.38.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/ssooidc	`v1.43.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sts	`v1.51.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/smithy-go	`v1.28.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`v1.9.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/go-viper/mapstructure/v2	`v2.4.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2	`v2.2.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/sagikazarmark/locafero	`v0.11.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/sourcegraph/conc	`v0.3.1-0.20240121214520-5f936abd7ae8`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/afero	`v1.15.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/cast	`v1.10.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/objx	`v0.5.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/subosito/gotenv	`v1.6.0`	indirect
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.5`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.35.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`v0.28.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 37 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/sys	`v0.35.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`
golang.org/x/text	`v0.28.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.39.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records