Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 22:14 UTC

xlionjuan / searxng-mcp-go

SearXNG MCP Server in golang (WIP)

GoAGPL-3.0★ 1 star⑂ 3 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindMCP serverNetwork serviceCommand-line toolhow this is determined

xlionjuan/searxng-mcp-go holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (34/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

XLionPersonal account
32 followers77 public repossince Jan 2017

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence20/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,150 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,150
human_commit_share0.44
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year20
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases21 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 7 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~12.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count21
latest_release_tagv1.8.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release7
mean_days_between_releases12.1

Community & Adoption

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

34At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
2.5/25Forks3 forks
0/15Watchers0 watchers
Inputs used
forks3
stars1
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (AGPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
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?

47Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 100% of commits
4.1/13.5Contributor breadth3 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled3
top_contributor_share0.998
How it's scored
41.8/42Issue resolution100% of issues closed
26.8/30PR acceptance284/318 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs284
open_issues1
closed_issues273
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.996
closed_unmerged_prs34
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
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
10.9/25Owner reach32 followers of xlionjuan
25/25Track record77 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers32
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginxlionjuan
public_repos77
account_age_days3,529
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows10 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.golangci.yml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests25 out of 25 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
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6
How it's scored
17.9/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: setuptools 82.0.1 (moderate 6.1)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
40/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory has been public longer than 90 days
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages50
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 1, unknown 1
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 50 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.

76Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history38 of 44 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.864
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,082
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapjustfile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.golangci.yml
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
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesjustfile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/72 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes53,424
source_files_sampled72
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

1GitHub stars
3contributors
1,150commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
21releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Go, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'searxng-server-test-settings' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3 ⇿
0Stars
3Forks
5Releases

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.

12233312026-062026-062026-07
Major 0Minor 4Patch 1
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 22:14 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests25 out of 25 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 22
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.7.0go.mod
Gogo.uber.org/goleakv1.3.0go.mod
PyPIbabel==2.18.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIcertifi==2026.7.22searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIcurl-cffi==0.16.1searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIflask==3.1.3searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIflask-babel==4.0.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIgranian==2.8.2searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIisodate==0.7.2searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIjinja2==3.1.6searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIlxml==6.1.2searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPImarkdown-it-py==4.2.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPImsgspec==0.21.1searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIpygments==2.21.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-dateutil==2.9.0.post0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml==6.0.3searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIruamel-yaml>=0.19.1searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIsetuptools>=82.0.1searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPItyper==0.27.2searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions==4.16.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIvalkey==6.1.1searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
PyPIwhitenoise==6.12.0searxng-server-test/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 22 direct and 28 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/modelcontextprotocol/go-sdkv1.7.0direct
Gogo.uber.org/goleakv1.3.0direct
PyPIbabel2.18.0direct
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22direct
PyPIcurl-cffi0.16.1direct
PyPIflask3.1.3direct
PyPIflask-babel4.0.0direct
PyPIgranian2.8.2direct
PyPIisodate0.7.2direct
PyPIjinja23.1.6direct
PyPIlxml6.1.2direct
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0direct
PyPImsgspec0.21.1direct
PyPIpygments2.21.0direct
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0direct
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3direct
PyPIruamel-yaml0.19.1direct
PyPIsetuptools82.0.1direct
PyPItyper0.27.2direct
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0direct
PyPIvalkey6.1.1direct
PyPIwhitenoise6.12.0direct
Gogithub.com/google/jsonschema-gov0.4.3indirect
Gogithub.com/segmentio/asmv1.1.3indirect
Gogithub.com/segmentio/encodingv0.5.4indirect
Gogithub.com/yosida95/uritemplate/v3v3.0.2indirect
Gogolang.org/x/modv0.39.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth2v0.35.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/syncv0.22.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.47.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/telemetryv0.0.0-20260811182544-a038080d80e5indirect
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.15.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/toolsv0.49.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/vulnv1.7.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIcffi2.1.1indirect
PyPIclick8.4.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIitsdangerous2.2.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpytz2026.2indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIsearxng-server-test-settings0.0.0indirect
PyPIsetproctitle1.3.7indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIwerkzeug3.1.8indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 50 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
setuptools82.0.1directmoderate283.0.0
golang.org/x/modv0.39.0indirectunknown21.27.0-rc.3

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.