Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-29 13:41 UTC

uber-go / automaxprocs

Automatically set GOMAXPROCS to match Linux container CPU quota.

GoMIT★ 4,847 stars⑂ 176 forkssince May 2017View on GitHub ↗

uber-go/automaxprocs holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (86/100) and lowest on Vitality (23/100). It was last updated 300 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

34
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.

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)
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 59 is calibrated to 63 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Uber GoOrganization
2,593 followers26 public repossince May 2016

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogo.uber.org/automaxprocsv1.6.0-10704 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

23At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
3.6/36Push recencylast push 300 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.988
days_since_last_push300
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases10 releases published
7.2/36Release recencylatest release 704 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~289.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagv1.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release704
mean_days_between_releases289.1
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
59.8/60Stars4,847 stars
18.7/25Forks176 forks
8.2/15Watchers31 watchers
Inputs used
forks176
stars4,847
watchers31
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth25 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled25
top_contributor_share0.276
How it's scored
25/42Issue resolution60% of issues closed
25.9/30PR acceptance50/58 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 25/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs50
open_issues15
closed_issues22
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.595
closed_unmerged_prs8
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.5/25Owner reach2,593 followers of uber-go
22.4/25Track record26 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,593
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginuber-go
public_repos26
account_age_days3,764
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
14/35Publish recencylatest publish 704 days ago
20/20Version history10 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgo.uber.org/automaxprocs
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish704

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

59Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://godoc.org/go.uber.org/automaxprocs
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgo, golang, gomaxprocs, container, cpu
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://godoc.org/go.uber.org/automaxprocs
docs_sitehttps://godoc.org/go.uber.org/automaxprocs
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 25/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories8
affected_packages4
assessed_packages21
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1, unknown 3
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.7/40Legible commit history52 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.65
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
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 81
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 81 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, tools/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.012
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/24 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes7,139
source_files_sampled24
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4,847GitHub stars
25contributors
0commits, last 12 months
300days since last push
10releases
3bus factor
15open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch go package 'go.uber.org/automaxprocs/tools' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 176 ⇿
0Stars
176Forks
8Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

0408012016020017452018-062022-072026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 3

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-29 13:40 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 25/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/prashantv/gostubv1.1.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.7.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/lintv0.0.0-20210508222113-6edffad5e616tools/go.mod
Gohonnef.co/go/toolsv0.3.0-0.dev.0.20220306074811-23e1086441d2tools/go.mod
All dependencies 21

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 15 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/prashantv/gostub1.1.0direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.7.1direct
Gogolang.org/x/lint0.0.0-20201208152925-83fdc39ff7b5direct
Gogolang.org/x/lint0.0.0-20210508222113-6edffad5e616direct
Gohonnef.co/go/tools0.1.1direct
Gohonnef.co/go/tools0.3.0-0.dev.0.20220306074811-23e1086441d2direct
Gogithub.com/burntsushi/toml1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/google/renameio0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/pretty0.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rogpeppe/go-internal1.3.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/exp/typeparams0.0.0-20220328175248-053ad81199ebindirect
Gogolang.org/x/mod0.4.1indirect
Gogolang.org/x/mod0.6.0-dev.0.20220106191415-9b9b3d81d5e3indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210124154548-22da62e12c0cindirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.1.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/tools0.1.10indirect
Gogolang.org/x/xerrors0.0.0-20200804184101-5ec99f83aff1indirect
Gogopkg.in/check.v11.0.0-20180628173108-788fd7840127indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 21 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
golang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210124154548-22da62e12c0cindirectmoderate31.18.2
golang.org/x/mod0.4.1indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/mod0.6.0-dev.0.20220106191415-9b9b3d81d5e3indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/sys0.1.0indirectunknown10.44.0

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.