Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-12 14:08 UTC

sweetrpg / catalog-objects.go

Model objects for the Catalog microservice and client

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2023View on GitHub ↗

sweetrpg/catalog-objects.go holds a health index of 59 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (70/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (40/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

59
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.

59
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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SweetRPGOrganization
4 followers86 public repossince Sep 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/sweetrpg/catalog-objects.gov0.0.197-1970 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
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
11.3/18Commit volume17 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year17
human_commit_share0.93
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 20 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~72.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.0.196
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release20
mean_days_between_releases72.7

Community & Adoption

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

40Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbadgen.net, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth1 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
10.4/30PR acceptance17/49 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance6/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs17
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs32
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
5/25Owner reach4 followers of sweetrpg
25/25Track record86 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsweetrpg
public_repos86
account_age_days2,872
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history197 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/sweetrpg/catalog-objects.go
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests10 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython
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?

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests10 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
6.8/7.5Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
2/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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_packages1
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 1 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.9/40Legible commit history12 of 93 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.129
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,501
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapgo.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentdevcontainer, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontaineryes
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/16 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes1,523
source_files_sampled16
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
17commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.3 / 10
5.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-12 14:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
1Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
7CI-Tests10 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/sweetrpg/model-core.gov0.0.172go.mod
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/sweetrpg/model-core.gov0.0.172direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 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.