Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 02:42 UTC

vismaml / goodon

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗

vismaml/goodon holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (80/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (17/100). It was last updated 7 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

2 followers8 public repossince Mar 2023

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/vismaml/goodonv0.1.16-1744 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 7 days ago
9/36Commit cadence — 13/52 weeks with commits
12.7/18Commit volume — 25 commits in the last year
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
commits_last_year25
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push7
active_weeks_last_year13

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 17 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 44 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~17 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count17
latest_release_tagv0.1.16
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release44
mean_days_between_releases17
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
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers3
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?

63Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.538
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
30/30PR acceptance — 22/22 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 20/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs22
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d1
prs_decided_30d1
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
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
3.4/25Owner reach — 2 followers of vismaml
13.9/25Track record — 8 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers2
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginvismaml
public_repos8
account_age_days1,272

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 44 days ago
20/20Version history — 17 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/vismaml/goodon
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish44

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

17Critical · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsno
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 20/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
6.8/7.5Maintained — 11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate4.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
13/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: google.golang.org/grpc v1.82.2 (high 7.5), go.opentelemetry.io/otel v1.43.0 (unknown)
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
advisories5
affected_packages2
assessed_packages35
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 35 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.

54Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 27 of 30 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.9
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 30 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.167
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/5 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes6,799
source_files_sampled5
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

0GitHub stars
3contributors
25commits, last 12 months
7days since last push
17releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.5 / 10
4.5aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 02:42 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 21 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 20/23 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
9Maintained11 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 9
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 14
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.23.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/improbable-eng/grpc-webv0.15.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.43.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlpmetric/otlpmetricgrpcv1.32.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.43.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk/metricv1.43.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.2go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11go.mod
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middlewarev1.4.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/vismaml/ctxtracev1.0.10go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/google.golang.org/grpc/otelgrpcv0.56.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracegrpcv1.32.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/metricv1.43.0go.mod
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.43.0go.mod
All dependencies 35

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 14 direct and 21 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middlewarev1.4.0direct
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.23.0direct
Gogithub.com/improbable-eng/grpc-webv0.15.0direct
Gogithub.com/vismaml/ctxtracev1.0.10direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/contrib/instrumentation/google.golang.org/grpc/otelgrpcv0.56.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.43.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlpmetric/otlpmetricgrpcv1.32.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptrace/otlptracegrpcv1.32.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/metricv1.43.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdkv1.43.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/sdk/metricv1.43.0direct
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/tracev1.43.0direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.82.2direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.11direct
Gogithub.com/cenkalti/backoff/v4v4.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/cespare/xxhash/v2v2.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/desertbit/timerv0.0.0-20180107155436-c41aec40b27findirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/logrv1.4.3indirect
Gogithub.com/go-logr/stdrv1.2.2indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compressv1.11.7indirect
Gogithub.com/rs/corsv1.7.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/auto/sdkv1.2.1indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/otel/exporters/otlp/otlptracev1.32.0indirect
Gogo.opentelemetry.io/proto/otlpv1.3.1indirect
Gogo.uber.org/atomicv1.7.0indirect
Gogo.uber.org/multierrv1.6.0indirect
Gogo.uber.org/zapv1.18.1indirect
Gogolang.org/x/netv0.56.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.46.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/textv0.39.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/apiv0.0.0-20260414002931-afd174a4e478indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpcv0.0.0-20260414002931-afd174a4e478indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v2v2.4.0indirect
Gonhooyr.io/websocketv1.8.6indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 35 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
google.golang.org/grpcv1.82.2directhigh41.83.1
go.opentelemetry.io/otelv1.43.0directunknown11.44.0

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 statistics — Go.