Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 19:31 UTC

CatimaLoyalty / Android

Catima, a Loyalty Card & Ticket Manager for Android

Java · KotlinGPL-3.0★ 1,636 stars⑂ 247 forkssince Nov 2019View on GitHub ↗
#android#loyalty#izzyondroid#fdroid

CatimaLoyalty/Android holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

89
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CatimaOrganization
69 followers6 public repossince Jan 2022

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?

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,582 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,582
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~21.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.43.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases21.4

Community & Adoption

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

81Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

78Good
How it's scored
52.1/60Stars — 1,636 stars
19.9/25Forks — 247 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks247
stars1,636
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

42Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
9.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 59% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.588

Issue & PR responsiveness

79Good
How it's scored
33.4/42Issue resolution — 80% of issues closed
26.2/30PR acceptance — 2,057/2,354 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs2,057
open_issues139
closed_issues538
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.795
closed_unmerged_prs297
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

73Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
13.3/25Owner reach — 69 followers of CatimaLoyalty
15.2/25Track record — 6 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers69
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginCatimaLoyalty
public_repos6
account_age_days1,647
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

64Moderate
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://catima.app
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsandroid, loyalty, izzyondroid, fdroid
has_wikino
homepagehttps://catima.app
docs_sitehttps://catima.app
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 18 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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages97
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 97 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

53Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
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_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 2/92 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes79,150
source_files_sampled92
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

1,636GitHub stars
100contributors
1,582commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
139open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 19:30 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
8CI-Tests4 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 2/3 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 18 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane—Gemfile
All dependencies 97

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 96 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsfastlane2.237.0direct
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1269.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.254.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.130.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.227.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20240107indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.10.6indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-em_synchrony1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-excon1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-httpclient1.0.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.2indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http_persistent1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-patron1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-rack1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday_middleware1.2.1indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.104.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.64.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.2.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.1indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.1indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 97 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with CatimaLoyalty/Android. Read them side by side →

99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional96getstream/stream-chat-android:speech_balloon: Android Chat SDK ➜ Stream Chat API. UI component libraries for chat apps. Kotlin & Jetpack Compose messaging SDK for Android chatExceptional96auth0/react-native-auth0React Native toolkit for Auth0 APIExceptional96react/react-nativeA framework for building native applications using ReactExceptional96intercom/intercom-react-nativeReact Native wrapper to bridge our iOS and Android SDKExceptional96RevenueCat/react-native-purchasesReact Native in-app purchases and subscriptions made easy. Support for iOS, Android and web.Exceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics.