gillwong.homelab
Collection of roles for my homelab
Health score
75 / 100
Healthy, with room to improve.
- Excellent
- Good (this collection)
- Fair
- Poor
- Not scored
Observed 5 of 8 signal groups.
Four are needed before a score is published.
4 needed
Category subscores
- Security
- 100%
- Trust
- 100%
- Quality
- 51%
- Maintenance
- 64%
- ansible-core compatibility
- 100%
| Signal | Verdict | What we found | Points | Proved by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Signals we could observe | ||||
| security.dependency_boundedness | Passed | no dependencies declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| trust.link_claims | Passed | 4 of 4 link URLs declared | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.docs | Partly met | readme, 0 doc files | 1.5 / 3 | Published artifact |
| quality.changelog | Not met | no changelog file, 0 fragments | 0 / 2 | Published artifact |
| quality.license_quality | Passed | SPDX id declared (MIT) | 1 / 1 | Published artifact |
| quality.ci | Partly met | 2 workflow files, 0 other CI files | 1.6 / 2 | Published artifact |
| maintenance.release_recency | Partly met | last release 235 days ago | 2.55 / 3 | Galaxy index |
| maintenance.changelog_recency | Not met | no changelog in the published artifact | 0 / 1 | Published artifact |
| compat.requires_ansible | Passed | >=2.18.4 | 3 / 3 | Published artifact |
| Signals we could not observeNot observed — these are left out of the score rather than counted against it. | ||||
| trust.ansible_membership | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | ansible-build-data |
| quality.tests | Not observed | no test evidence in the published artifact | excluded from this score | Published artifact |
| compat.membership_currency | Not observed | not shipped in the ansible package | excluded from this score | ansible-build-data |
No repository evidence yet. ansible.care has not read any collection's Git repository, so every signal above was proved from a published artifact or from Ansible’s own build data. Tests and CI in particular can be proved present this way but never proved absent — so when we cannot see them, we leave them out of the score rather than counting them against you.
What is costing points
Each of these is a signal we observed and could not fully credit.
- quality.changelog
Ship a `changelogs/changelog.yaml` — the structured form `antsibull-changelog` generates and the `ansible` package consumes — rather than only a hand-maintained `CHANGELOG.md`, and write a fragment into `changelogs/fragments/` as each change lands rather than reconstructing release notes at release time. Both have to be inside the published tarball to be observable: a changelog that lives only in your Git repository is one we cannot read. This is the single highest-leverage change for most collections, because the same missing file is what holds down both changelog rules in this rubric. If you already publish `changelog.yaml` with fragments, this rule is answered.
- quality.docs
Ship your README and your `docs/` directory INSIDE the published tarball, not only in your Git repository — we do not read repositories at all yet, so a file that exists only there is a file we cannot see. If your `build_ignore` excludes `docs/`, that exclusion is why we observed nothing. Beyond the README this rule counts documentation FILES, so splitting a long README into per-module and per-role pages is what moves it; adding filler pages to raise a count would satisfy the arithmetic and help nobody.
- maintenance.release_recency
Cut a release to Galaxy. This is the heaviest single rule in the rubric because a release is the one unambiguous, publisher-controlled act of maintenance we can observe without reading your repository — which is also its limitation, and worth saying plainly: a collection under active development that rarely releases is under-credited here, and that is a gap in what we can see rather than a judgement about the work. If your collection is finished rather than abandoned, there is nothing here you should change on our account.
What would strengthen this score
These signals can only add points in the current scoring version — they are never counted against you.
- quality.ci
Publish your CI configuration inside the artifact. `.github/workflows/` is what we count most precisely, and other CI config files earn partial credit when your automation runs somewhere we cannot enumerate as exactly. `build_ignore` commonly strips `.github/`, again on the packaging documentation’s own advice, so an absence here is a gap in what we could read rather than a statement that your collection has no CI. In this scoring version this rule can only add points: an unobserved CI signal leaves your calculation rather than scoring zero, so this is worth doing for the credit and never to avoid a deduction.
Links
Authors
- Gillbert Wong