Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 02:33 UTC

valiss-dev / valiss-go

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Jul 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

valiss-dev/valiss-go holds a health index of 53 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (77/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (24/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

53
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

53
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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

valissOrganization
1 follower9 public repossince Jul 2026

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Govaliss.dev/valissv0.13.1-557 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

69Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 10 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
16.6/18Commit volume — 69 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year69
human_commit_share0.957
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year4

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 57 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tagv0.13.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases0.4
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
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

49Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1
How it's scored
25.2/42Issue resolution — 60% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance — 11/12 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs11
open_issues6
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.6
closed_unmerged_prs1
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of valiss-dev
7.6/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginvaliss-dev
public_repos9
account_age_days61

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 57 days ago
20/20Version history — 5 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesvaliss.dev/valiss
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish57

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

57Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
10/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.2/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
14/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: google.golang.org/grpc v1.82.1 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories8
affected_packages3
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 42 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.nats.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 64 of 66 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.nats.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.97
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,913
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 69
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 69 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.029
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/60 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes36,800
source_files_sampled60
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

0GitHub stars
1contributors
69commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
6open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 02:32 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
5CI-Tests4 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
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
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
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
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.12.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/labstack/echo/v4v4.15.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/nats-io/nkeysv0.4.16go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/gin-gonic/ginv1.12.0direct
Gogithub.com/labstack/echo/v4v4.15.4direct
Gogithub.com/nats-io/nkeysv0.4.16direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11direct
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1direct
Gogithub.com/bytedance/gopkgv0.1.3indirect
Gogithub.com/bytedance/sonicv1.15.0indirect
Gogithub.com/bytedance/sonic/loaderv0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/cloudwego/base64xv0.1.6indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/gabriel-vasile/mimetypev1.4.12indirect
Gogithub.com/gin-contrib/ssev1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/localesv0.14.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/universal-translatorv0.18.1indirect
Gogithub.com/go-playground/validator/v10v10.30.1indirect
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-jsonv0.10.5indirect
Gogithub.com/goccy/go-yamlv1.19.2indirect
Gogithub.com/json-iterator/gov1.1.12indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/cpuid/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/labstack/gommonv0.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/leodido/go-urnv1.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-colorablev0.1.15indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-isattyv0.0.22indirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/concurrentv0.0.0-20180306012644-bacd9c7ef1ddindirect
Gogithub.com/modern-go/reflect2v1.0.2indirect
Gogithub.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2v2.2.4indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/quic-go/qpackv0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/quic-go/quic-gov0.59.1indirect
Gogithub.com/twitchyliquid64/golang-asmv0.15.1indirect
Gogithub.com/ugorji/go/codecv1.3.1indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/bytebufferpoolv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/valyala/fasttemplatev1.2.2indirect
Gogo.mongodb.org/mongo-driver/v2v2.5.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/archv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/cryptov0.53.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.56.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.46.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.38.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260414002931-afd174a4e478indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 42 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
google.golang.org/grpcv1.82.1directhigh31.85.0-dev.0.20260825072537-93e31b48545e
golang.org/x/cryptov0.53.0indirectunknown40.56.0
golang.org/x/textv0.38.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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 statistics — Go.