Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-03 22:46 UTC

ClickHouse / rocksdb

A library that provides an embeddable, persistent key-value store for fast storage.

C++ · JavaGPL-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 12 forkssince Nov 2020forkView on GitHub ↗

ClickHouse/rocksdb holds a health index of 31 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (16/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.

31
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

31
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 51 is calibrated to 51 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ClickHouseOrganization · verified domain
2,052 followers381 public repossince Sep 2019

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?

41Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

36Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

48Weak
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 68 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recency — latest release 2,147 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~23.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count68
latest_release_tagv6.14.5
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,147
mean_days_between_releases23.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

16Critical · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

9Critical
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 1 stars
8.7/25Forks — 12 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars1
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesci.appveyor.com, circleci.com, travis-ci.org
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

87Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

88Excellent
How it's scored
45.9/54Bus factor — 5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
18.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor5
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.163

Issue & PR responsiveness

73Good
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
21.6/30PR acceptance — 23/32 decided PRs merged
13/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs23
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d1
prs_merged_30d2
prs_decided_30d2
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs9
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

99Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.8/25Owner reach — 2,052 followers of ClickHouse
25/25Track record — 381 public repos, account ~7 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,052
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginClickHouse
public_repos381
account_age_days2,588

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

49Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — http://rocksdb.org
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://rocksdb.org
docs_sitehttp://rocksdb.org
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

34At Risk
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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 — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 56 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories56
affected_packages10
assessed_packages99
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 10
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 99 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.

66Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 83 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.83
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, examples/Makefile, fuzz/Makefile, java/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
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_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, examples/Makefile, fuzz/Makefile, java/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsjava/jmh/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

98Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
52.5/55Manageable file sizes — 67/1,493 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes917,386
source_files_sampled1,493
oversized_source_files67

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — fuzz/proto/db_operation.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesfuzz/proto/db_operation.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1GitHub stars
100contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
68releases
5bus factor
0open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Community profile unavailable
  • Could not fetch maven package 'org.rocksdb:rocksdbjni-jmh' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks

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.

0246810121212020-112023-102026-09

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.4 / 10
3.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-03 22:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 8/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities56 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenorg.rocksdb:rocksdbjni6.6.0-SNAPSHOTjava/jmh/pom.xml
Mavenorg.openjdk.jmh:jmh-core${jmh.version}java/jmh/pom.xml
All dependencies 99

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 97 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenorg.openjdk.jmh:jmh-core1.22direct
Mavenorg.rocksdb:rocksdbjni6.6.0-SNAPSHOTdirect
Mavencom.mycila:license-maven-plugin3.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.8.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-shade-plugin3.2.1indirect
Mavenorg.openjdk.jmh:jmh-generator-annprocess1.22indirect
RubyGemsactivesupport6.0.3.4indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.0indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script-source1.11.1indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscommonmarker0.17.13indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.1.7indirect
RubyGemsdnsruby1.61.5indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsethon0.12.0indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsexecjs2.7.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday1.3.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.14.2indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgemoji3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages209indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages-health-check1.16.1indirect
RubyGemshtml-pipeline2.14.0indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n0.9.5indirect
RubyGemsjekyll3.9.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-avatar0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-coffeescript1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark1.3.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark-ghpages0.1.6indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-default-layout0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.15.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-gist1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-github-metadata2.13.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-mentions1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-optional-front-matter0.3.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-paginate1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-readme-index0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-relative-links0.6.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme0.4.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.6.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-swiss1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-architect0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-cayman0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-dinky0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-hacker0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-leap-day0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-merlot0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-midnight0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-minimal0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-modernist0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-primer0.5.4indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-slate0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-tactile0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-time-machine0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-titles-from-headings0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjemoji0.12.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.3.1indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.3indirect
RubyGemslisten3.4.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.5.1indirect
RubyGemsminima2.5.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.14.3indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.1.1indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.11.4indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.20.0indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix3.1.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.10.4indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.10.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.2.5indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.23.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-enum0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsruby2_keywords0.0.2indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.0indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass3.7.4indirect
RubyGemssass-listen4.0.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.8.2indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn0.1.1indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsthread_safe0.3.6indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.4.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo1.2.9indirect
RubyGemsunf0.1.4indirect
RubyGemsunf_ext0.0.7.7indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.7.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.7.0indirect
RubyGemszeitwerk2.4.2indirect
Dependency advisories 10

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 99 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 10 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport6.0.3.4indirecthigh68.1.2.1
addressable2.8.0indirecthigh12.9.0
commonmarker0.17.13indirecthigh50.23.10
concurrent-ruby1.1.7indirecthigh31.3.7
faraday1.3.0indirecthigh22.14.3
nokogiri1.11.4indirecthigh291.19.4
rexml3.2.5indirecthigh63.3.9
rubyzip2.3.0indirecthigh13.4.0
tzinfo1.2.9indirecthigh11.2.10
webrick1.7.0indirecthigh21.8.2

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 ClickHouse/rocksdb. Read them side by side →

100fluent/fluentdFluentd: Unified Logging Layer (project under CNCF)Exceptional100apache/arrowApache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analyticsExceptional99grpc/grpcC++ based gRPC (C++, Python, Ruby, Objective-C, PHP, C#)Exceptional99stripe/stripe-rubyRuby library for the Stripe API. Exceptional99open-telemetry/opentelemetry-rubyOpenTelemetry Ruby API & SDK, and related gemsExceptional99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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