Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 09:59 UTC

workos / workos-go

Official Go SDK for interacting with the WorkOS API

GoMIT★ 102 stars⑂ 32 forkssince Apr 2019View on GitHub ↗

workos/workos-go holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (54/100). It was last updated today. 7 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WorkOSOrganization · verified domain
1,017 followers122 public repossince Feb 2019

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/workos/workos-go/v10v10.3.0-634 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 126 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year126
human_commit_share0.37
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year39

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 34 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv10.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release34
mean_days_between_releases6.2
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?

54Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.5/60Stars — 102 stars
12.4/25Forks — 32 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks32
stars102
watchers17
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicespkg.go.dev
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

93Exceptional · 23% of overall
How it's scored
51.3/54Bus factor — 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 13% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 69 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor7
contributors_sampled69
top_contributor_share0.134
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 514/581 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs514
open_issues0
closed_issues37
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d5
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d6
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs67
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21.6/25Owner reach — 1,017 followers of workos
25/25Track record — 122 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,017
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginworkos
public_repos122
account_age_days2,771

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 34 days ago
20/20Version history — 6 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/workos/workos-go/v10
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish34

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://workos.github.io/workos-go/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgo-sdk, sso, saml, okta, azure-active-directory, audit-logs, scim, adfs, gsuite-saml-apps, directory-sync, backend, sdk, dax
has_wikino
homepagehttps://workos.github.io/workos-go/
docs_sitehttps://workos.github.io/workos-go/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

70Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 28 contributing companies or organizations
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
5/5Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
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 — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages9
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 9 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.

94Exceptional · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://workos.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 31 of 37 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://workos.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.838
agent_instruction_files.claude/CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,057
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 20 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 12 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesmakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.2
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.12
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
52.6/55Manageable file sizes — 4/91 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes325,060
source_files_sampled91
oversized_source_files4

Key facts

102GitHub stars
69contributors
126commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
7bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 32 ⇿
0Stars
32Forks
100Releases

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.

01325383222020-082023-082026-08
Major 9Minor 71Patch 20

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.2 / 10
6.2aggregate

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 09:58 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 3/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 28 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/google/go-querystringv1.2.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1go.mod
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 6 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/google/go-querystringv1.2.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.12.1direct
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spewv1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmpv0.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflibv1.0.0indirect
Gogo.yaml.in/yaml/v3v3.0.5indirect
Gogopkg.in/check.v1v1.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6cindirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 9 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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — Go.