Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-23 00:39 UTC

trimble-oss / tierceron-hat

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 1 forksince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗

trimble-oss/tierceron-hat holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Security (82/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (41/100). It was last updated 22 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TrimbleOrganization
427 followers73 public repossince Jan 2021

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/trimble-oss/tierceron-hatv1.4.0-3522 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 22 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence10/52 weeks with commits
15.8/18Commit volume57 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year57
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push22
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases35 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 22 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~2.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count35
latest_release_tagv1.4.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release22
mean_days_between_releases2.8
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?

42Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars0
watchers6
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgoreportcard.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

68Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.859
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
26/30PR acceptance46/53 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs46
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs7
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
18.9/25Owner reach427 followers of trimble-oss
24.2/25Track record73 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers427
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logintrimble-oss
public_repos73
account_age_days2,046

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 22 days ago
20/20Version history35 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/trimble-oss/tierceron-hat
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish22

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

41Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

82Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
26.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: golang.org/x/crypto v0.54.0 (unknown)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages17
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityunknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 17 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.4/40Legible commit history43 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.439
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsbrimfeather/go.mod, go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/21 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes29,420
source_files_sampled21
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)cap/cap.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filescap/cap.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

0GitHub stars
5contributors
57commits, last 12 months
22days since last push
35releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.0 / 10
8.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-23 00:39 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests12 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained29 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 9
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/trimble-oss/tierceron-hatv0.0.0-00010101000000-000000000000brimfeather/go.mod
Gogithub.com/vbauerster/mpb/v8v8.12.0brimfeather/go.mod
Gogithub.com/lafriks/go-shamirv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/orcaman/concurrent-map/v2v2.0.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.mod
Gogithub.com/quic-go/quic-gov0.61.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0go.mod
All dependencies 17

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/lafriks/go-shamirv1.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/orcaman/concurrent-map/v2v2.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/quic-go/quic-gov0.61.0direct
Gogithub.com/vbauerster/mpb/v8v8.12.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0direct
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11direct
Gogithub.com/acarl005/stripansiv0.0.0-20180116102854-5a71ef0e047dindirect
Gogithub.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2v2.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.2-0.20180830191138-d8f796af33ccindirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-runewidthv0.0.20indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.1-0.20181226105442-5d4384ee4fb2indirect
Gogithub.com/vividcortex/ewmav1.2.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.56.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.40.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260414002931-afd174a4e478indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 17 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/cryptov0.54.0directunknown1

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

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 statisticsGo.