HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ossf
scorecard
Go2020–2025
ossf / scorecard

scorecard

OpenSSF Scorecard - Security health metrics for Open Source

13Distinct people
15Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
5.8KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

OpenSSF Scorecard - Security health metrics for Open Source

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year15 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-11-10 03:32:04 UTC to 2025-06-27 19:42:21 UTC.

012342020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 2 submissions, 2 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC422
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312

What Hacker News says

15 sources

Show HN: Shouldiuse.dev – Software dependency health checker

As software engineers we are often confronted with the decision of whether to code something ourselves or to add an existing library that does it for us. Whether we like it or not – we are adding dependencies sooner or later. And it's arguably good practice to check a new dependency beforehand: Is it maintained? By whom? How many issues does it have and how many of those are bugs? Are they being fixed? What's on the roadmap? What's the release frequency and how often do APIs break? One of our favorite solutions that already exist to answer such questions is the OpenSSF Scorecard project (https://github.com/ossf/scorecard) – we use this ourselves and can only recommend it. We built shouldiuse.dev around it to make results accessible as a website, and used the opportunity to dive deep into heavily LLM-assisted coding for the first time in a
Read the rest
professional project. Three people (devs and non-devs) each started vibe-coding an initial prototypes, one using v0, one using lovable and one using Cursor. At first blown away by how fast we were able to generate these and how great there were looking, we soon ran into issues merging different ideas as there were multiple different web frameworks and versions flying around. The most work on the frontend definitely went into getting the details and small adaptions right. In parallel, on the backend we started to write a Go application that uses the ossf/scorecard library to do a lot of the checks we want. To also play around with AI on that end, we intentionally made heavy use of Copilot and tried around with different models and prompts. We also added more metrics to the dependency check that we gather via GitHub API, and finally generate textual summaries via OpenAI. The Prompt to generate a final textual recommendation consists of: * A header stating the role, capabilities and limitations, and the expected response format (JSON and no lists/bullet points) – We also tell it to be critical, objective and give short and concise answers. * The result of the scorecard check * Additional community-related data * The questions that are being shown in the FAQ section – The answers to those are also generated by the LLM. Since such a check involves heavy use of the GitHub API, we require users to input a GitHub personal access token when requesting a check. The first time a repository is checked on shouldiuse.dev it will take a few seconds, but then the results are stored in a postgres for faster retrieval later on. For now it only works for public GitHub repos, but we might add other platforms if there is interest. We also added a remote MCP server with built-in authentication, so you can directly access shouldiuse from your IDE and automatically check new dependencies anytime a coding assistant introduces one to ensure that only safe dependencies are added to the project. What started as a fun internal experiment quickly surprised us with how useful it turned out to be. We didn’t plan to release it publicly, but we think might be useful for other devs and therefore we wanted to share it here. Any feedback is welcome!
13 points · Open discussion
One thing that wasn't discussed in this post was SOS [1]. While PYPI's definition may not match the SOS criteria for criticality, SOS does state "... even if your project doesn’t meet all the criteria, we still encourage you to apply and provide your own criticality justification." Doing work to improve the OpenSSF scorecard [2] could result in the author (or others, for that matter) getting paid. It may not map one-to-one with 2FA but it might make it easier to swallow some of the requirements from PYPI. It makes sense for companies like Google to pay maintainers/curators to focus more on security. [1] https://sos.dev/ [2] https://github.com/ossf/scorecard
In Congratulations: We now have opinions on your open source contributions
Honk! I represent Google on the OpenSSF, and help lead our Google Open Source Security Team. We've kicked off several projects inside the OpenSSF, and contribute to several other related efforts. Here's a non-exhaustive list: Security Scorecards (https://github.com/ossf/scorecard): auto-generated security checks for OSS, Criticality Score (https://github.com/ossf/criticality_score): auto-generated criticality score for OSS, Package Feeds (https://github.com/ossf/package-feeds): watches package registries for updates, malware analysis tools, SLSA (https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa): proposal for a supply chain integrity framework, Sigstore/Cosign (https://sigstore.dev/): code signing made easy! We are also investing and exploring different efforts for improving security of critical OSS projects, and making it sustainable! If any of th
Read the rest
ese projects sound interesting, come join us in the OpenSSF Working Groups! *edited formatting
In Open Source Security Foundation

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.