Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 21:46 UTC

try-pulse / pulse-import

Import issues into Pulse from other tools. v1: Jira CSV → Pulse issues + Main Docs.

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolhow this is determined

#cli #importer #jira #pulse #csv #golang #issue-tracker #migration

try-pulse/pulse-import holds a health index of 27 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (89/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (32/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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 53 is calibrated to 54 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

PulseOrganization

0 followers1 public reposince Jul 2026

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/try-pulse/pulse-import	v0.5.0	-	6	23 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

42Weak

How it's scored

28.8/36	Push recency — last push 17 days ago
1.4/36	Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
11.9/18	Commit volume — 20 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully

Inputs used

commits_last_year	20
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	17
active_weeks_last_year	2

Release discipline

90Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 6 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 23 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~5.6 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	6
latest_release_tag	v0.5.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	23
mean_days_between_releases	5.6

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

43Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

1Critical

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

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

Community health

92Excellent

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	5
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

32At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

13Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

1Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — no issues or no data
0/30	PR acceptance — 0/4 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	0
open_issues	0
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	—
closed_unmerged_prs	4
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

33At Risk

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of try-pulse
2.6/25	Track record — 1 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	try-pulse
public_repos	1
account_age_days	71

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 23 days ago
20/20	Version history — 6 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/try-pulse/pulse-import
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	23

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

88Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

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

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://trypulse.tech
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 8 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cli, importer, jira, pulse, csv, golang, issue-tracker, migration
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://trypulse.tech
docs_site	https://trypulse.tech
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

29At Risk

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 top contributor profilesIran

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5	Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5	Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — no SAST tool detected
5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	17
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	1
scorecard_aggregate	5.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	50
security_posture_after_multiplier	29
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	58

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	0
affected_packages	0
assessed_packages	32
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	none
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 32 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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent

How it's scored

45/45	Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 20 of 20 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	AGENTS.md, vendor/github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes	6,651

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

87Excellent

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile, vendor/charm.land/bubbletea/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/charm.land/huh/v2/Makefile, vendor/charm.land/lipgloss/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
10/10	Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 20 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8	Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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	yes
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile, vendor/charm.land/bubbletea/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/charm.land/huh/v2/Makefile, vendor/charm.land/lipgloss/v2/Taskfile.yaml, vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0.25
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/62 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	35,822
source_files_sampled	62
oversized_source_files	0

Key facts

0GitHub stars

1contributors

20commits, last 12 months

17days since last push

6releases

1bus factor

0open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10

5.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 21:46 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
3	Branch-Protection	branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
n/a	CI-Tests	no pull request found
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
10	Fuzzing	project is fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10	Packaging	packaging workflow detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	no SAST tool detected
10	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10	Vulnerabilities	0 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 8

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	charm.land/huh/v2	`v2.0.3`	go.mod
Go	charm.land/lipgloss/v2	`v2.0.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth	`v0.11.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/schollz/progressbar/v3	`v3.19.1`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	go.mod
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.5`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.19.0`	go.mod
Go	golang.org/x/term	`v0.44.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 32

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	charm.land/huh/v2	`v2.0.3`	direct
Go	charm.land/lipgloss/v2	`v2.0.1`	direct
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/displaywidth	`v0.11.0`	direct
Go	github.com/schollz/progressbar/v3	`v3.19.1`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.10.2`	direct
Go	go.yaml.in/yaml/v3	`v3.0.5`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/sync	`v0.19.0`	direct
Go	golang.org/x/term	`v0.44.0`	direct
Go	charm.land/bubbles/v2	`v2.0.0`	indirect
Go	charm.land/bubbletea/v2	`v2.0.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/atotto/clipboard	`v0.1.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/catppuccin/go	`v0.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/colorprofile	`v0.4.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/ultraviolet	`v0.0.0-20260205113103-524a6607adb8`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/ansi	`v0.11.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/ordered	`v0.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/exp/strings	`v0.0.0-20240722160745-212f7b056ed0`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/term	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/termios	`v0.1.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/charmbracelet/x/windows	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/clipperhouse/uax29/v2	`v2.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/dustin/go-humanize	`v1.0.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`v1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/lucasb-eyer/go-colorful	`v1.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/mattn/go-runewidth	`v0.0.20`	indirect
Go	github.com/mitchellh/colorstring	`v0.0.0-20190213212951-d06e56a500db`	indirect
Go	github.com/mitchellh/hashstructure/v2	`v2.0.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/muesli/cancelreader	`v0.2.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/rivo/uniseg	`v0.4.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`v1.0.9`	indirect
Go	github.com/xo/terminfo	`v0.0.0-20220910002029-abceb7e1c41e`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`v0.46.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 32 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 v0.34.0 — 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

More detail

Feedback

Related records