Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-05 02:54 UTC

stretchr / testify

A toolkit with common assertions and mocks that plays nicely with the standard library

GoMIT★ 26,147 stars⑂ 1,901 forkssince Oct 2012View on GitHub ↗

stretchr/testify holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (88/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (66/100). It was last updated 14 days ago. 6 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Stretchr, Inc.Organization
162 followers51 public repossince Jun 2012

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1-29342 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
28.8/36Push recencylast push 14 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence20/52 weeks with commits
17.1/18Commit volume80 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained19 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year80
human_commit_share0.97
days_since_last_push14
active_weeks_last_year20
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases25 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 342 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~60.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count25
latest_release_tagv1.11.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release342
mean_days_between_releases60.4
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?

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars26,147 stars
25/25Forks1,901 forks
12.8/15Watchers198 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,901
stars26,147
watchers198
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, goreportcard.com, pkg.go.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
48.6/54Bus factor6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 14% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor6
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.138
How it's scored
30.6/42Issue resolution73% of issues closed
17.8/30PR acceptance527/888 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs527
open_issues232
closed_issues623
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.729
closed_unmerged_prs361
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
15.9/25Owner reach162 followers of stretchr
24.5/25Track record51 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers162
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginstretchr
public_repos51
account_age_days5,166
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
26/35Publish recencylatest publish 342 days ago
20/20Version history29 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/stretchr/testify
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish342

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 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
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://pkg.go.dev/github.com/stretchr/testify
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstestify, go, assertions, mocking, golang, testing, toolkit
has_wikino
homepagehttps://pkg.go.dev/github.com/stretchr/testify
docs_sitehttps://pkg.go.dev/github.com/stretchr/testify
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

76Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained19 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 3 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.

66Good · 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 history77 of 97 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.794
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap_codegen/go.mod, go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
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
8/8Automated maintenance3 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests_codegen/go.mod, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.03
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
49.7/55Manageable file sizes6/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes109,773
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files6

Key facts

26,147GitHub stars
99contributors
80commits, last 12 months
14days since last push
25releases
6bus factor
232open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,901 ⇿
0Stars
1,901Forks
15Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

5001,0001,5002,0001,901662020-122023-102026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 10

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.0 / 10
7.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 02:54 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
9CI-Tests14 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/stretchr/objxv0.5.3go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/stretchr/objxv0.5.3direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/ernesto-jimenez/gogen0.0.0-20180125220232-d7d4131e6607indirect
Dependency advisories 0

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

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 statisticsGo.