# zer0se7en/fabric — health index 41/100 (At risk)

> Inspection of the public repository zer0se7en/fabric by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 41 out of 100, placing it in the At risk band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/zer0se7en/fabric
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/zer0se7en/fabric
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/zer0se7en/fabric/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/z/zer0se7en/fabric.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-15
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.11.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 20/100 | Critical |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 12/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 71/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 37/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 62/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Hyperledger Fabric is an enterprise-grade permissioned distributed ledger framework for developing solutions and applications. Its modular and versatile design satisfies a broad range of industry use cases. It offers a unique approach to consensus that enables performance at scale while preserving privacy. |
| Homepage | https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/fabric |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2020-01-09 |
| Last push | 2023-06-14 |
| Latest release | v2.0.0-beta |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 6 |
| Fork | yes |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/hyperledger/fabric | v1.4.12 | — |

## Vitality — 20/100 (Critical)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | not met | 0 / 36 | last push 1127 days ago |
| Commit cadence | not met | 0 / 36 | 0/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | not met | 0 / 18 | 0 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 48/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 33 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 2407 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~40.8 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 12/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 71/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 48.6 / 54 | 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 12% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 21 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 72/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | met | 38.2 / 38.2 | 16/16 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 45/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 3.4 / 25 | 2 followers of zer0se7en |
| Track record | partial | 22.8 / 25 | 29 public repos, account ~13 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 58/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 4 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml, tox.ini |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.hyperledger.org/projects/fabric |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 37/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 37/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 21 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | partial | 4.5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 93 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 62/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 88/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, docs/Makefile, vendor/github.com/IBM/idemix/Makefile, vendor/github.com/IBM/mathlib/Makefile, vendor/github.com/felixge/httpsnoop/Makefile, vendor/github.com/fsouza/go-dockerclient/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/proto/Makefile, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/protoc-gen-gogo/descriptor/Makefile, vendor/github.com/grpc-ecosystem/go-grpc-middleware/makefile, vendor/github.com/hashicorp/hcl/Makefile, vendor/github.com/matttproud/golang_protobuf_extensions/pbutil/Makefile, vendor/github.com/pelletier/go-toml/Makefile, vendor/github.com/pkg/errors/Makefile, vendor/github.com/prometheus/procfs/Makefile, vendor/github.com/spf13/cast/Makefile, vendor/github.com/spf13/cobra/Makefile, vendor/github.com/spf13/viper/Makefile, vendor/github.com/stretchr/objx/Taskfile.yml, vendor/go.opencensus.io/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/atomic/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/multierr/Makefile, vendor/go.uber.org/zap/Makefile, vendor/golang.org/x/net/http2/Makefile, vendor/google.golang.org/grpc/Makefile, vendor/gopkg.in/ini.v1/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .golangci.yaml, .golangci.yml, tox.ini |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Go (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.3 / 55 | 25/1974 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | common/grpclogging/testpb/echo.proto, common/grpcmetrics/testpb/echo.proto, common/ledger/blkstorage/storage.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/msgs/ledger_metadata.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/privacyenabledstate/snapshot_record.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/pvtstatepurgemgmt/pvtdata_key.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/statedb/statecouchdb/cache_value.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/statedb/statecouchdb/dbvalue.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/statedb/stateleveldb/db_value.proto, core/ledger/kvledger/txmgmt/txmgr/updates.proto, core/ledger/pvtdatastorage/persistent_msgs.proto, core/transientstore/persistance.proto, internal/pkg/comm/testdata/grpc/test.proto, vendor/github.com/IBM/idemix/bccsp/schemes/dlog/crypto/idemix.proto, vendor/github.com/IBM/idemix/bccsp/schemes/dlog/crypto/translator/amcl/amcl.proto, vendor/github.com/SmartBFT-Go/consensus/smartbftprotos/logrecord.proto, vendor/github.com/SmartBFT-Go/consensus/smartbftprotos/messages.proto, vendor/github.com/containerd/cgroups/stats/v1/metrics.proto, vendor/github.com/docker/docker/api/types/swarm/runtime/plugin.proto, vendor/github.com/gogo/protobuf/gogoproto/gogo.proto, vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/raft/v3/raftpb/raft.proto, vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/etcdserver/api/snap/snappb/snap.proto, vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/wal/walpb/record.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example |

## Collection warnings

- Community profile unavailable
- Could not fetch go package 'github.com/hyperledger/fabric/ccaas_builder' from its registry
- go package 'github.com/hyperledger/fabric' points at a different repository (https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt