# trendvidia/protowire — health index 73/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository trendvidia/protowire 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/trendvidia/protowire
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/trendvidia/protowire
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/trendvidia/protowire/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/t/trendvidia/protowire.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-15
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 83/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 43/100 | Weak |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 50/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 80/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 66/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 61/100 | Moderate |

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

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | ProtoWire is a serialization toolkit built around PXF (Proto eXpressive Format), SBE (Simple Binary Encoding), and a cross-port Envelope. PXF is a human-friendly text serialization format; SBE is a fixed-offset binary format (ultra-low-latency). Both are backed by protobuf schemas. |
| Classification | cli, library |
| Homepage | https://protowire.org |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 1 |
| Created | 2026-05-06 |
| Last push | 2026-08-10 |
| Latest release | v1.11.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 158 |
| Bus factor | 1 |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/trendvidia/protowire | v1.11.0 | — |

## Vitality — 83/100 (Excellent)

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

### Development activity — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 4 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 6.9 / 36 | 10/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 158 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### 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 | 17 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 5 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~2.3 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 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## 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 — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 1 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| 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 | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 50/100 (Moderate)

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) — 13/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | not met | 0 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 100% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | partial | 1.4 / 13.5 | 1 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | partial | 3 / 10 | project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 74/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 35.8 / 42 | 85% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 28.9 / 30 | 155/161 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 29/100 (At Risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 followers of trendvidia |
| Track record | partial | 13.5 / 25 | 28 public repos, account ~1 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 5 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 17 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 80/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 74/100 (Good)

| 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 | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

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

## Security — 66/100 (Good)

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 — 66/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 6 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 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 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 30 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool is run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file 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 | 29 existing vulnerabilities detected |

## AI Readiness — 61/100 (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 — 40/100 (Weak)

| 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 | 87 of 87 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | editors/jetbrains/plugin/build.gradle.kts, go.mod, internal/schemaext/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | editors/vscode/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 13 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/83 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 50/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | proto/docs/v1/pack.proto, proto/docs/v1/registry.proto, proto/docs/v1/topic.proto, proto/envelope/v1/envelope.proto, proto/openapi/v1/config.proto, proto/pxf/annotations.proto, proto/pxf/bignum.proto, proto/pxf/secret.proto, proto/sbe/annotations.proto, proto/schema/catalog/v1/catalog.proto, proto/schema/config/v1/config.proto, proto/schema/v1/annotations.proto, proto/schema/v1/descriptor.proto, proto/schema/v1/report.proto, testdata/adversarial/adversarial.proto, testdata/bench-test.proto, testdata/docs/grammar/schema.proto, testdata/keyed/keyed.proto, testdata/lint/reserved-enum-name.proto, testdata/lint/reserved-field-name.proto, testdata/lint/reserved-oneof-name.proto, testdata/lint/reserved-uppercase-ok.proto, testdata/openapi/store.proto, testdata/sbe-bench.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/01_basic.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/02_composition.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/03_message_and_field_annotations.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/04_required_and_default.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/05_error_overrides.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/06_cross_file_lib.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/06_cross_file_main.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/07_report_golden/myco/commons/types.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/07_report_golden/myco/commons/validator.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/07_report_golden/myco/users/user.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/09_wkt_refinements.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/10_literal_args.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/12_expression_args.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/13_declaration_shapes.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/14_refinement_kinds.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/15_collections_golden/inventory.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/16_sensitive_golden/credentials.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/17_missing_impl_golden/signup.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/18_default_unsatisfiable_golden/listing.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/19_catalog_miss/profile.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/20_sensitive_class.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/21_http_operation.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/22_http_additional_bindings.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/23_http_template_paths.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/arity_mismatch.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/container_alias.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/cyclic_alias.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/heterogeneous_list.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/http_empty_method.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/http_relative_path.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/http_repeated_template.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/http_unbalanced_template.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/http_unbound_template.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/map_field_in_literal.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/positional_after_named.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/reserved_sensitive_class.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/unbalanced_expression.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/undeclared_annotation.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/unknown_literal_field.proto, testdata/schema-extensions/invalid/untyped_list_element.proto, testdata/test.proto |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## 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