Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 13:31 UTC

threefoldtecharchive / tfexplorer

GoApache-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Apr 2020archivedView on GitHub ↗

KindWeb interfaceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

threefoldtecharchive/tfexplorer holds a health index of 16 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (72/100) and lowest on Vitality (21/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 43 is calibrated to 39 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

threefoldtecharchiveOrganization

0 followers186 public repossince Oct 2023

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/threefoldtech/tfexplorerpoints to another repo — not scored	v0.6.1	-	16	1548 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

21At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,253 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	1,253
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

52Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 15 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 1,548 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~64.7 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	15
latest_release_tag	v0.6.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	1,548
mean_days_between_releases	64.7

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

0/60	Stars — 0 stars
0/25	Forks — 1 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	1
stars	0
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

65Good

How it's scored

25.2/54	Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations

Inputs used

bus_factor	2
contributors_sampled	14
top_contributor_share	0.282

Issue & PR responsiveness

93Exceptional

How it's scored

42/42	Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
28.6/30	PR acceptance — 144/151 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7

Inputs used

merged_prs	144
open_issues	0
closed_issues	180
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	1
closed_unmerged_prs	7
first_time_authors_30d	—
first_time_prs_merged_30d	—
first_time_prs_decided_30d	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

61Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of threefoldtecharchive
18.6/25	Track record — 186 public repos, account ~2 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	threefoldtecharchive
public_repos	186
account_age_days	1,014

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

51Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

55Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
0/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	no

Security

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

37Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

37Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5	Code-Review — Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5	SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 103 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	3.7

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

Dependency advisories

36Weak

How it's scored

4.6/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 4 affected: golang.org/x/crypto 0.0.0-20200622213623-75b288015ac9 (critical 10.0), github.com/prometheus/client_golang 1.5.1 (high 7.5), go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver 1.3.2 (moderate 6.8), +1 more
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
22.6/40	No advisories left outstanding — 4 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,924 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	86
affected_packages	6
assessed_packages	31
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	critical 2, high 2, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages	4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 31 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.

55Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

25At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
25.1/40	Legible commit history — 47 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.47
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
53.2/55	Manageable file sizes — 5/149 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	986,997
source_files_sampled	149
oversized_source_files	5

Key facts

0GitHub stars

14contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,253days since last push

15releases

2bus factor

0open issues

Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

go package 'github.com/threefoldtech/tfexplorer' points at a different repository (https://github.com/threefoldtech/tfexplorer); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10

3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 13:31 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	internal 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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7	Code-Review	Found 11/14 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10	Contributors	project has 5 contributing companies or organizations
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7	SAST	SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	103 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 39

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	axios	`^0.19.2`	frontend/package.json
npm	chart.js	`^2.9.3`	frontend/package.json
npm	core-js	`^3.6.4`	frontend/package.json
npm	lodash	`^4.17.15`	frontend/package.json
npm	moment	`^2.24.0`	frontend/package.json
npm	moment-duration-format	`^2.3.2`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue	`^2.6.11`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue-chartjs	`^3.5.0`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue-chartkick	`^0.6.1`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue-google-charts	`^0.3.2`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue-router	`^3.1.6`	frontend/package.json
npm	vue2-google-maps	`^0.10.7`	frontend/package.json
npm	vuetify	`^2.2.20`	frontend/package.json
npm	vuex	`^3.1.3`	frontend/package.json
Go	github.com/asaskevich/govalidator	`v0.0.0-20200907205600-7a23bdc65eef`	go.mod
Go	github.com/cenkalti/backoff	`v2.2.1+incompatible`	go.mod
Go	github.com/dave/jennifer	`v1.3.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/emicklei/dot	`v0.10.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gorilla/handlers	`v1.4.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/gorilla/mux	`v1.7.4`	go.mod
Go	github.com/iancoleman/strcase	`v0.0.0-20190422225806-e506e3ef7365`	go.mod
Go	github.com/jbenet/go-base58	`v0.0.0-20150317085156-6237cf65f3a6`	go.mod
Go	github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir	`v1.1.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/pkg/errors	`v0.9.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`v1.5.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rakyll/statik	`v0.1.7`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`v1.19.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/rusart/muxprom	`v0.0.0-20200323164249-36ea051efbe6`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stellar/go	`v0.0.0-20201005172357-947b63b1099f`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.6.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/threefoldtech/zos	`v0.4.0-rc9-b.0.20200918140104-b46553b0c680`	go.mod
Go	github.com/tyler-smith/go-bip39	`v1.0.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/urfave/cli	`v1.22.4`	go.mod
Go	github.com/zaibon/httpsig	`v0.0.0-20210219100301-931cc471f406`	go.mod
Go	go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver	`v1.3.2`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`v0.0.0-20200622213623-75b288015ac9`	go.mod
Go	golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/wgctrl	`v0.0.0-20191219145116-fa6499c8e75f`	go.mod
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v2	`v2.2.7`	go.mod
Go	gotest.tools	`v2.2.0+incompatible`	go.mod

All dependencies 31

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 25 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/asaskevich/govalidator	`0.0.0-20200907205600-7a23bdc65eef`	direct
Go	github.com/cenkalti/backoff	`2.2.1+incompatible`	direct
Go	github.com/dave/jennifer	`1.3.0`	direct
Go	github.com/emicklei/dot	`0.10.1`	direct
Go	github.com/gorilla/handlers	`1.4.2`	direct
Go	github.com/gorilla/mux	`1.7.4`	direct
Go	github.com/iancoleman/strcase	`0.0.0-20190422225806-e506e3ef7365`	direct
Go	github.com/jbenet/go-base58	`0.0.0-20150317085156-6237cf65f3a6`	direct
Go	github.com/mitchellh/go-homedir	`1.1.0`	direct
Go	github.com/pkg/errors	`0.9.1`	direct
Go	github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`1.5.1`	direct
Go	github.com/rakyll/statik	`0.1.7`	direct
Go	github.com/rs/zerolog	`1.19.0`	direct
Go	github.com/rusart/muxprom	`0.0.0-20200323164249-36ea051efbe6`	direct
Go	github.com/stellar/go	`0.0.0-20201005172357-947b63b1099f`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`1.6.1`	direct
Go	github.com/threefoldtech/zos	`0.4.0-rc9-b.0.20200918140104-b46553b0c680`	direct
Go	github.com/tyler-smith/go-bip39	`1.0.2`	direct
Go	github.com/urfave/cli	`1.22.4`	direct
Go	github.com/zaibon/httpsig	`0.0.0-20210219100301-931cc471f406`	direct
Go	go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver	`1.3.2`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/crypto	`0.0.0-20200622213623-75b288015ac9`	direct
Go	golang.zx2c4.com/wireguard/wgctrl	`0.0.0-20191219145116-fa6499c8e75f`	direct
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v2	`2.2.7`	direct
Go	gotest.tools	`2.2.0+incompatible`	direct
Go	github.com/containerd/containerd	`1.4.0-beta.1.0.20200615192441-ae2f3fdfd1a4`	indirect
Go	github.com/fzipp/gocyclo	`0.3.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/gordonklaus/ineffassign	`0.0.0-20210522101830-0589229737b2`	indirect
Go	github.com/whs/nacl-sealed-box	`0.0.0-20180930164530-92b9ba845d8d`	indirect
Go	github.com/xdg/scram	`0.0.0-20180814205039-7eeb5667e42c`	indirect
Go	google.golang.org/grpc	`1.29.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 31 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 4 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
golang.org/x/crypto	`0.0.0-20200622213623-75b288015ac9`	direct	critical	45	`3.4.0`
google.golang.org/grpc	`1.29.1`	indirect	critical	5	`1.82.1`
github.com/prometheus/client_golang	`1.5.1`	direct	high	2	`1.11.1`
github.com/containerd/containerd	`1.4.0-beta.1.0.20200615192441-ae2f3fdfd1a4`	indirect	high	29	`2.3.2`
go.mongodb.org/mongo-driver	`1.3.2`	direct	moderate	3	`2.4.2`
gopkg.in/yaml.v2	`2.2.7`	direct	moderate	2	`2.2.8`

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.

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records