# temporalio/cloud-sdk-go — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository temporalio/cloud-sdk-go by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good 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/temporalio/cloud-sdk-go
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/temporalio/cloud-sdk-go
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/temporalio/cloud-sdk-go/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/temporalio/cloud-sdk-go.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 81/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 43/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 77/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 54/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 60/100 | Moderate |

The weighted overall 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Temporal Cloud Ops Go SDK |
| Classification | library |
| Primary language | Shell |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 6 |
| Forks | 2 |
| Created | 2025-02-04 |
| Last push | 2026-09-15 |
| Latest release | v0.19.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 25 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | go.temporal.io/cloud-sdk | v0.19.0 | — |

## Vitality — 81/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 68/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 4 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 11.8 / 36 | 17/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 12.7 / 18 | 25 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | partial | 7 / 10 | 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7 |

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 24 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 14 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~14.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 14 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 43/100 (Weak)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 11.3 / 60 | 6 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 2 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 1.7 / 15 | 3 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 77/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 34/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 60% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 12 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 87/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 23.8 / 30 | 46/58 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 13.5 / 15 | Found 25/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 3,842 followers of temporalio |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 229 public repos, account ~6 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 14 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 24 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 54/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 64/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 3 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 | partial | 16 / 20 | 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8 |

### Documentation — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 59/100 (Moderate)

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 — 62/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2 / 2.5 | 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | Found 25/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9 |
| Contributors | partial | 0.8 / 2.5 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |
| 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 | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | 9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | met | 5 / 5 | all dependencies are pinned |
| 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 | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 66 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 47/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 125 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 7.8 / 35 | 2 affected: google.golang.org/grpc 1.69.4 (critical 9.1), google.golang.org/grpc v1.70.0 (critical 9.1) |
| 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 | 27.5 / 40 | 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 184 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

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

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 — 60/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 55/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.temporal.io/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 39 of 40 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | go.mod, internal/build/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 8.5 / 10 | 2 of the last 47 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 3 of the last 47 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | met | 10 / 10 | all dependencies are pinned |

### Code legibility for models — 42/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | not met | 0 / 45 | Shell without a type-check config |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 42.5 / 55 | 5/22 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

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

## 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