Software health reportschema 0.26.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-22 19:31 UTC

CycloneDX / cdxgen-action

GitHub action for CycloneDX BOM generator (cdxgen). cdxgen produced bom xml file can be uploaded to dependency track, AppThreat and other commercial Software Composition Analysis (SCA) products

JavaScriptMIT★ 11 stars⑂ 5 forkssince Jan 2020archivedView on GitHub ↗

#cdxgen #bom #sca #github

CycloneDX/cdxgen-action holds a health index of 14 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (68/100) and lowest on Vitality (25/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 41 is calibrated to 36 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CycloneDX BOM StandardOrganization

885 followers66 public repossince May 2017

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish	Tags
npm	ajvpoints to another repo — not scored	8.20.0	1,348,404,679	359	89 days ago	json schema validator validation jsonschema json-schema json-schema-validator json-schema-validation
npm	asappoints to another repo — not scored	2.0.6	167,324,892	9	3299 days ago	event task queue
npm	asn1points to another repo — not scored	0.2.6	115,523,798	18	1721 days ago	—
npm	aws4points to another repo — not scored	1.13.2	97,377,328	75	693 days ago	—
npm	cliuipoints to another repo — not scored	9.0.1	867,102,483	27	492 days ago	cli command-line layout design console wrap table
npm	asynckitpoints to another repo — not scored	0.5.0	442,902,641	5	216 days ago	async jobs parallel serial iterator array object stream destroy terminate abort
npm	caselesspoints to another repo — not scored	0.12.0	87,512,372	12	3463 days ago	headers http caseless
npm	aws-sign2points to another repo — not scored	0.7.0	80,130,893	4	3388 days ago	—

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

25At Risk · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 1,262 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	1,262
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

60Moderate

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 2 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,389 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~0.1 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	2
latest_release_tag	v1.0.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	2,389
mean_days_between_releases	0.1

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?

51Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

21At Risk

How it's scored

16.2/60	Stars — 11 stars
5/25	Forks — 5 forks
0/15	Watchers — 2 watchers

Inputs used

forks	5
stars	11
watchers	2
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

85Excellent

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

39Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

10Critical

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5	Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	1
top_contributor_share	1

Issue & PR responsiveness

17Critical

How it's scored

0/42	Issue resolution — 0% of issues closed
15/30	PR acceptance — 1/2 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	1
open_issues	2
closed_issues	0
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0
closed_unmerged_prs	1
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

95Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
21.2/25	Owner reach — 885 followers of CycloneDX
25/25	Track record — 66 public repos, account ~9 yr old

Inputs used

followers	885
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	—
owner_login	CycloneDX
public_repos	66
account_age_days	3,341

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

52Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

46Weak

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — .eslintrc, .eslintrc.yml
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	yes
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

60Moderate

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 4 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	cdxgen, bom, sca, github
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

33At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

21At Risk

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 36 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	13
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	5
scorecard_aggregate	2.1

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

79Good

How it's scored

14/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: fast-uri 3.1.3 (high 7.5)
25/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
40/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory has been public longer than 90 days

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	1
affected_packages	1
assessed_packages	4
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1
direct_affected_packages	1

Matched the npm:ajv@8.20.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 4 packages. 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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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)

100Exceptional

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — node_modules/delayed-stream/Makefile, node_modules/extsprintf/Makefile, node_modules/json-stringify-safe/Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config — .eslintrc, .eslintrc.yml
11/11	Static type checking — node_modules/uri-js/tsconfig.json, node_modules/xml-js/types/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	package-lock.json, yarn.lock
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	node_modules/delayed-stream/Makefile, node_modules/extsprintf/Makefile, node_modules/json-stringify-safe/Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	node_modules/uri-js/tsconfig.json, node_modules/xml-js/types/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — JavaScript with type-check config (node_modules/uri-js/tsconfig.json, node_modules/xml-js/types/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/1 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	JavaScript
largest_source_bytes	1,724
source_files_sampled	1
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	example, examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

11GitHub stars

1contributors

0commits, last 12 months

1,262days since last push

2releases

1bus factor

2open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package 'cdxgen-action' from its registry
npm package 'ajv' points at a different repository (https://github.com/ajv-validator/ajv); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'asap' points at a different repository (https://github.com/kriskowal/asap); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'asn1' points at a different repository (https://github.com/joyent/node-asn1); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'aws4' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mhart/aws4); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'cliui' points at a different repository (https://github.com/yargs/cliui); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'asynckit' points at a different repository (https://github.com/alexindigo/asynckit); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'caseless' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mikeal/caseless); excluded from ecosystem scoring
npm package 'aws-sign2' points at a different repository (https://github.com/mikeal/aws-sign); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 5 ⇿

0Stars

5Forks

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.

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.1 / 10

2.1aggregate

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 · 2026-07-22 19:31 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
0	Vulnerabilities	36 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 26

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	@actions/core	`^1.1.1`	package.json
npm	@actions/io	`^1.0.1`	package.json
npm	@appthreat/cdxgen	`^1.2.1`	package.json
npm	fast-deep-equal	`^3.1.1`	node_modules/ajv/package.json
npm	fast-json-stable-stringify	`^2.0.0`	node_modules/ajv/package.json
npm	json-schema-traverse	`^0.4.1`	node_modules/ajv/package.json
npm	uri-js	`^4.2.2`	node_modules/ajv/package.json
npm	@types/color-name	`^1.1.1`	node_modules/ansi-styles/package.json
npm	color-convert	`^2.0.1`	node_modules/ansi-styles/package.json
npm	safer-buffer	`~2.1.0`	node_modules/asn1/package.json
npm	tweetnacl	`^0.14.3`	node_modules/bcrypt-pbkdf/package.json
npm	balanced-match	`^1.0.0`	node_modules/brace-expansion/package.json
npm	concat-map	`0.0.1`	node_modules/brace-expansion/package.json
npm	keyv	`^4.0.0`	node_modules/cacheable-lookup/package.json
npm	clone-response	`^1.0.2`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	get-stream	`^5.1.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	http-cache-semantics	`^4.0.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	keyv	`^4.0.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	lowercase-keys	`^2.0.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	normalize-url	`^4.1.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	responselike	`^2.0.0`	node_modules/cacheable-request/package.json
npm	string-width	`^4.2.0`	node_modules/cliui/package.json
npm	strip-ansi	`^6.0.0`	node_modules/cliui/package.json
npm	wrap-ansi	`^6.2.0`	node_modules/cliui/package.json
npm	mimic-response	`^1.0.0`	node_modules/clone-response/package.json
npm	color-name	`~1.1.4`	node_modules/color-convert/package.json

All dependencies 0

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation

Dependency advisories 1

Installing npm:ajv@8.20.0 pulls in 4 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct dependencies.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
fast-uri	`3.1.3`	direct	high	1	`4.1.1`

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.

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 v0.26.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records