Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 13:28 UTC

ActivityWatch / aw-android

ActivityWatch for Android, using aw-server-rust as backend.

KotlinMPL-2.0★ 265 stars⑂ 57 forkssince Dec 2018View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

ActivityWatch/aw-android holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ActivityWatchOrganization · verified domain
998 followers60 public repossince Apr 2016

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

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 recency — last push 2 days ago
18.7/36Commit cadence — 27/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 169 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year169
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year27
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 30 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 19 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~116.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count30
latest_release_tagv0.14.0b2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release19
mean_days_between_releases116.8

Community & Adoption

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

55Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
39.3/60Stars — 265 stars
14.6/25Forks — 57 forks
5.3/15Watchers — 10 watchers
Inputs used
forks57
stars265
watchers10
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-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_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

66Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 59% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.592
How it's scored
18/42Issue resolution — 43% of issues closed
23.1/30PR acceptance — 84/109 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs84
open_issues79
closed_issues59
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d22
prs_decided_30d23
issue_closed_ratio0.428
closed_unmerged_prs25
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
21.6/25Owner reach — 998 followers of ActivityWatch
25/25Track record — 60 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers998
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginActivityWatch
public_repos60
account_age_days3,814

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsandroid, activitywatch, rust
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories14
affected_packages7
assessed_packages89
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 2
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 89 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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 89 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.989
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Kotlin (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle, mobile/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/56 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes25,193
source_files_sampled56
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

265GitHub stars
10contributors
169commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
30releases
1bus factor
79open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 57 ⇿
0Stars
57Forks
30Releases

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.

01020304050605222018-122022-102026-09
Major 0Minor 4Patch 16

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 13:28 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests23 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 23/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 17 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 23 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities14 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane—Gemfile
All dependencies 89

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 88 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsfastlane2.216.0direct
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.5indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.15indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.828.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.183.1indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.71.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.135.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.6.0indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.6indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.6.5indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.5.20190701indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemsexcon0.103.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.7indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_synchrony1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-excon1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-httpclient1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-patron1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-rack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry1.0.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday_middleware1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.2.7indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-plugin-increment_version_code0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.50.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.17.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.13.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.19.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.44.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.8.1indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.5indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.8.3indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.6.3indirect
RubyGemsjwt2.7.1indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.12.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.15.0indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.0indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix5.0.3indirect
RubyGemsrake13.0.6indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.1.2indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.6indirect
RubyGemsrouge2.0.7indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.3indirect
RubyGemssignet0.18.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.1indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunf0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunf_ext0.0.8.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.4.2indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.23.0indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 89 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
addressable2.8.5indirecthigh12.9.0
faraday1.10.3indirecthigh22.14.3
jwt2.7.1indirecthigh13.2.0
rexml3.2.6indirecthigh63.3.9
webrick1.8.1indirecthigh21.8.2
aws-sdk-s31.135.0indirectmoderate11.208.0
excon0.103.0indirectmoderate11.5.0

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 statistics.