Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-18 06:41 UTC

wirenboard / wb-mqtt-confed

Configuration editor backend service for Wiren Board

Go · PythonCustom license★ 1 star⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

wirenboard/wb-mqtt-confed holds a health index of 34 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (27/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 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 56 is calibrated to 59 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

Wiren BoardOrganization
167 followers266 public repossince Sep 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/wirenboard/wb-mqtt-confedv1.18.1-6210 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

68Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
7.6/36Commit cadence11/52 weeks with commits
10.8/18Commit volume15 commits in the last year
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
commits_last_year15
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year11
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases62 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~10.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count62
latest_release_tagv1.18.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases10.1

Community & Adoption

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

27At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
6.5/15Watchers16 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars1
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 34% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.34
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
26.4/30PR acceptance73/83 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_prs73
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d3
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs10
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 domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
16/25Owner reach167 followers of wirenboard
25/25Track record266 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers167
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginwirenboard
public_repos266
account_age_days4,720
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 10 days ago
20/20Version history62 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/wirenboard/wb-mqtt-confed
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish10

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

39Weak · 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
8/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests14 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmqtt
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
1/2.5CI-Tests14 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
5.2/7.5Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.8
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier75
security_posture_after_multiplier36
security_posture_before_jurisdiction48
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 75% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages12
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 12 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history75 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.75
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 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
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
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 codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/12 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes12,959
source_files_sampled12
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
10contributors
15commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
62releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-18 06:40 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
4CI-Tests14 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 4
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
7Maintained9 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 7
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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 6
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/DisposaBoy/JsonConfigReaderv0.0.0-20201129172854-99cf318d67e7go.mod
Gogithub.com/evanphx/json-patch/v5v5.7.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/objxv0.5.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/wirenboard/wbgongv0.7.4go.mod
Gogithub.com/xeipuuv/gojsonpointerv0.0.0-20180127040702-4e3ac2762d5fgo.mod
Gogithub.com/xeipuuv/gojsonschemav1.2.0go.mod
All dependencies 12

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/disposaboy/jsonconfigreaderv0.0.0-20201129172854-99cf318d67e7direct
Gogithub.com/evanphx/json-patch/v5v5.7.0direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/objxv0.5.3direct
Gogithub.com/wirenboard/wbgongv0.7.4direct
Gogithub.com/xeipuuv/gojsonpointerv0.0.0-20180127040702-4e3ac2762d5fdirect
Gogithub.com/xeipuuv/gojsonschemav1.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/pkg/errorsv0.9.1indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1indirect
Gogithub.com/xeipuuv/gojsonreferencev0.0.0-20180127040603-bd5ef7bd5415indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 12 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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsGo.