Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-27 07:07 UTC

tetiva-app / proto

Protobuf contracts for Tetiva — shared by the desktop client and the sync server

MIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryhow this is determined
#api-contracts#buf#grpc#protobuf

tetiva-app/proto holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Vitality (64/100) and lowest on Security (15/100). It was last updated today.

31
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

31
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 37 is calibrated to 31 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

tetiva-appOrganization
0 followers2 public repossince Jul 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/tetiva-app/protov0.1.2-311 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

64Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

48Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
2.1/36Commit cadence — 3/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume — 12 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year3

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 2 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count2
latest_release_tagv0.1.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases22.5
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?

24At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

39Weak · 23% of overall

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

34At Risk
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
0/25Owner reach — 0 followers of tetiva-app
3.8/25Track record — 2 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers0
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintetiva-app
public_repos2
account_age_days51

Package maintenance

92Excellent
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 11 days ago
12/20Version history — 3 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/tetiva-app/proto
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish11

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

31At Risk · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

1Critical
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

75Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://tetiva.app
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsapi-contracts, buf, grpc, protobuf
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://tetiva.app
docs_sitehttps://tetiva.app
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

15Critical · 16% of overall

Security posture

15Critical
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate1.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

44Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://tetiva.app/llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://tetiva.app/llms.txt
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)

39Weak
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Taskfile.yml
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesTaskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

88Excellent
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — primary language unknown
48.4/55Manageable file sizes — 3/25 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_language—
largest_source_bytes201,968
source_files_sampled25
oversized_source_files3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Type-checkable code. Remaining weights renormalized.

Machine-readable interfaces

50Moderate
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — proto/gophercourier/audit/v1/audit.proto, proto/gophercourier/auth/v1/auth.proto, proto/gophercourier/billing/v1/billing.proto, proto/gophercourier/invite/v1/invite.proto, proto/gophercourier/org/v1/membership.proto, proto/gophercourier/org/v1/org.proto, proto/gophercourier/platform/v1/platform.proto, proto/gophercourier/role/v1/role.proto, proto/gophercourier/subscription/v1/subscription.proto, proto/gophercourier/sync/v1/entities.proto, proto/gophercourier/sync/v1/sync.proto, proto/gophercourier/workspace/v1/membership.proto, proto/gophercourier/workspace/v1/workspace.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesproto/gophercourier/audit/v1/audit.proto, proto/gophercourier/auth/v1/auth.proto, proto/gophercourier/billing/v1/billing.proto, proto/gophercourier/invite/v1/invite.proto, proto/gophercourier/org/v1/membership.proto, proto/gophercourier/org/v1/org.proto, proto/gophercourier/platform/v1/platform.proto, proto/gophercourier/role/v1/role.proto, proto/gophercourier/subscription/v1/subscription.proto, proto/gophercourier/sync/v1/entities.proto, proto/gophercourier/sync/v1/sync.proto, proto/gophercourier/workspace/v1/membership.proto, proto/gophercourier/workspace/v1/workspace.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
-contributors
12commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
2releases
-bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Language breakdown unavailable
  • Contributor list unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.5 / 10
1.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-27 07:07 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/12 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.79.3go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with tetiva-app/proto. Read them side by side →

69brefwiz/api-bonesOpinionated REST API types: errors (RFC 9457), pagination, health checks, and more. No HTTP client, no business logic — just types.Good62bufbuild/buf-actionBuild, format, lint, and check for breaking changes in your Protobuf schemas, and automatically publish to the Buf Schema Registry.Moderate96cloudwego/kitexGo RPC framework with high-performance and strong-extensibility for building micro-services.Exceptional94bufbuild/bufThe best way of working with Protocol Buffers.Exceptional93connectrpc/connect-goThe Go implementation of Connect: Protobuf RPC that works.Exceptional88temporalio/apiTemporal gRPC API and proto filesExcellent

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.