# tailcallhq/gh-workflow — health index 22/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository tailcallhq/gh-workflow by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/tailcallhq/gh-workflow
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/tailcallhq/gh-workflow
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/tailcallhq/gh-workflow/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/tailcallhq/gh-workflow.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-22
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.26.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 90/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 55/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 62/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 71/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 33/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 56/100 | Moderate |

A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a Critical ceiling of 29.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Write your github workflows in rust |
| Homepage | https://docs.rs/gh-workflow/latest |
| Primary language | Rust |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 176 |
| Forks | 26 |
| Created | 2024-10-12 |
| Last push | 2026-07-22 |
| Latest release | v0.9.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 83 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | github, github-actions, github-workflows, rust |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | gh-workflow | 0.9.0 | 11,547 |
| crates | gh-workflow-macros | 0.9.0 | 11,531 |
| crates | gh-workflow-tailcall | 0.9.0 | 547 |

## Vitality — 90/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 83/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 20.1 / 36 | 29/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 17.3 / 18 | 83 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 58 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 0 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~35.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 55/100 (Moderate)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 48/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 36.4 / 60 | 176 stars |
| Forks | partial | 11.7 / 25 | 26 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 2 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 73/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 58.3 / 80 | 23,625 downloads/month across crates |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 62/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 35/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 2.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 88% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 16 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 34.6 / 46.8 | 74% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 25 / 38.2 | 136/208 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 14.6 / 25 | 108 followers of tailcallhq |
| Track record | partial | 19.4 / 25 | 38 public repos, account ~3 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 3 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 0 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 25 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 71/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 68/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 4 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://docs.rs/gh-workflow/latest |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 4 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 33/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 20/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized. A dependency reported as a malicious package applies a 35% multiplier to Security posture and gives it a Critical ceiling of 29.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 2/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 5 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 18 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | partial | 6 / 7.5 | 2 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 85/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 111 resolved dependencies against OSV; 2 could not be assessed (no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list). 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 26.6 / 35 | 1 affected: serde_yml 0.0.13 (unknown) |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 37.2 / 40 | 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 314 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 35/100 (At risk)

1 resolved dependency(ies) resolve to a version the registry still serves and the OpenSSF corpus reports as malicious. Direct and indirect are treated alike: an install-time payload runs at any depth in the graph. A report here concerns the package as published, not the maintainers of this repository, which may have resolved it unknowingly.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | partial | 35 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious: fs 0.0.1-security |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 56/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 31 of 33 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 66/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-macros/Cargo.toml, crates/gh-workflow-tailcall/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 2 / 10 | 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 57 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/27 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 20/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- deps.dev does not index crates:gh-workflow@0.9.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt