Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 05:27 UTC

zenoss / zenoss-protobufs

Makefile · GoApache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 1 forksince Mar 2019View on GitHub ↗

zenoss/zenoss-protobufs holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (75/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (31/100). It was last updated 16 days ago. 3 contributors account 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

ZenossOrganization
23 followers35 public repossince Apr 2010

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/zenoss/zenoss-protobufsv1.5.5-1253 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

49Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 16 days ago
2.8/36Commit cadence4/52 weeks with commits
7/18Commit volume5 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year5
human_commit_share0.972
days_since_last_push16
active_weeks_last_year4
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases5 releases published
16.2/36Release recencylatest release 364 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~265.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count5
latest_release_tagv1.5.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release364
mean_days_between_releases265.9
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?

31At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars3 stars
0/25Forks1 forks
8.9/15Watchers41 watchers
Inputs used
forks1
stars3
watchers41
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
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?

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 32% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth8 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.32
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
20.3/30PR acceptance21/31 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs21
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
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 domain
9.9/25Owner reach23 followers of zenoss
23.3/25Track record35 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers23
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginzenoss
public_repos35
account_age_days6,001

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 53 days ago
20/20Version history12 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/zenoss/zenoss-protobufs
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

33At Risk · 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
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests4 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
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?

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0.5/2.5CI-Tests4 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
1/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
8/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories2 affected: google.golang.org/grpc 1.75.1 (critical 9.1), io.grpc:grpc-netty-shaded 1.70.0 (high 7.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
28.3/40No advisories left outstanding2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 401 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories24
affected_packages5
assessed_packages21
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 1, moderate 1, unknown 2
direct_affected_packages2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
36.6/40Legible commit history24 of 35 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.686
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 36
8/8Automated maintenance1 of the last 36 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod, java/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.028
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeMakefile without a type-check config
52.9/55Manageable file sizes5/128 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageMakefile
largest_source_bytes87,894
source_files_sampled128
oversized_source_files5
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)protobufs/zenoss/cloud/collection_cfg.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/credentials.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/data_receiver.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/data_registry.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesprotobufs/zenoss/cloud/collection_cfg.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/credentials.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/data_receiver.proto, protobufs/zenoss/cloud/data_registry.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3GitHub stars
8contributors
5commits, last 12 months
16days since last push
5releases
3bus factor
0open issues
Go, Maven, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch maven package 'org.zenoss.zing.proto:zenoss-protobufs' from its registry
  • Could not fetch pypi package 'zenoss-protobufs' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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 05:27 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2CI-Tests4 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 17/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
2SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 2
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities18 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v2v2.27.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/apiv0.0.0-20250908214217-97024824d090go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.75.1go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.9go.mod
Mavencom.google.protobuf:protobuf-java${google.protobuf.version}java/pom.xml
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-netty-shaded${io.grpc.version}java/pom.xml
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-protobuf${io.grpc.version}java/pom.xml
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-stub${io.grpc.version}java/pom.xml
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-googleapis${io.grpc.version}java/pom.xml
All dependencies 22

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 12 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/grpc-ecosystem/grpc-gateway/v22.27.2direct
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.11.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api0.0.0-20250908214217-97024824d090direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.75.1direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.36.9direct
Mavencom.google.protobuf:protobuf-java4.29.3direct
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-googleapis1.70.0direct
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-netty-shaded1.70.0direct
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-protobuf1.70.0direct
Mavenio.grpc:grpc-stub1.70.0direct
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/kr/text0.2.0indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/rogpeppe/go-internal1.12.0indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/objx0.5.2indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.41.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.33.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.28.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc0.0.0-20250826171959-ef028d996bc1indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin2.7indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 21 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
google.golang.org/grpc1.75.1directcritical101.85.0-dev.0.20260825072537-93e31b48545e
io.grpc:grpc-netty-shaded1.70.0directhigh14.2.4.Final
golang.org/x/net0.41.0indirectmoderate111.27.0-rc.3
golang.org/x/sys0.33.0indirectunknown10.44.0
golang.org/x/text0.28.0indirectunknown10.39.0

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 statisticsGo.