Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-28 13:09 UTC

x448 / float16

float16 provides IEEE 754 half-precision format (binary16) with correct conversions to/from float32

GoMIT★ 95 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗

x448/float16 holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Security (88/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
overall / 100
Good

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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

38 followers54 public repossince Oct 2019

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/x448/float16v0.8.4-82383 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

70Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
15.2/36Commit cadence — 22/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 49 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year49
human_commit_share0.58
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year22
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 7 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,383 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count7
latest_release_tagv0.8.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2,383
mean_days_between_releases2.8
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32/60Stars — 95 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars95
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_badges
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?

52Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 74% of commits
5.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 4 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled4
top_contributor_share0.737
How it's scored
28/42Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
19.1/30PR acceptance — 84/132 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs84
open_issues3
closed_issues6
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.667
closed_unmerged_prs48
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
11.4/25Owner reach — 38 followers of x448
24.7/25Track record — 54 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers38
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginx448
public_repos54
account_age_days2,465
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
4/35Publish recency — latest publish 2,383 days ago
20/20Version history — 8 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/x448/float16
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2,383

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsbinary16, float16, ieee754, floating-point, half-precision, go, golang
has_wikiyes
homepage
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

88Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

88Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 16 out of 16 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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 — 14 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
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
7.5/7.5Token-Permissions — GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate8.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, packaging, signed_releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

67Good · 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 — 52 of 58 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.897
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .golangci.yml
11/11Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 42 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — all dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.42
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/3 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes39,335
source_files_sampled3
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

95GitHub stars
4contributors
49commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
7releases
1bus factor
3open 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 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
7Releases

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.

24681012141322019-122023-032026-06
Major 0Minor 3Patch 4

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.8 / 10
8.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-28 13:08 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
10CI-Tests16 out of 16 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained14 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
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
10Token-PermissionsGitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

Raw JSON report machine-readable

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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