Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 14:14 UTC

GoogleCloudPlatform / cloud-foundation-fabric

End-to-end modular samples and landing zones toolkit for Terraform on GCP.

HCLApache-2.0★ 2,097 stars⑂ 1,261 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗

GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-foundation-fabric holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (72/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

21,985 followers1,509 public repossince Nov 2012

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?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 795 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year795
human_commit_share0.94
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~15.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv58.0.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases15.6
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?

84Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.9/60Stars — 2,097 stars
25/25Forks — 1,261 forks
10.7/15Watchers — 86 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,261
stars2,097
watchers86
growth_stateorganic
growth_factor_pct100
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 32% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.319
How it's scored
41.6/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
26.5/30PR acceptance — 2,916/3,301 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 6/9 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 27/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs2,916
open_issues7
closed_issues728
prs_merged_7d15
prs_decided_7d20
prs_merged_30d47
prs_decided_30d55
issue_closed_ratio0.99
closed_unmerged_prs385
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d6
first_time_prs_decided_30d9
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 21,985 followers of GoogleCloudPlatform
25/25Track record — 1,509 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers21,985
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginGoogleCloudPlatform
public_repos1,509
account_age_days5,048

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsterraform, google-cloud, gcp
has_wikino
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?

75Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 27/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 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 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
3/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
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
6/7.5Vulnerabilities — 2 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate6.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories2
affected_packages2
assessed_packages132
unassessed_packages28
affected_by_severityhigh 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 132 resolved dependencies against OSV. 28 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

72Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, GEMINI.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 81 of 94 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.862
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, GEMINI.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes15,026
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 6 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.06
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HCL without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/62 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHCL
largest_source_bytes39,280
source_files_sampled62
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples, recipes
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples, recipes
has_mcp_signalno
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

2,097GitHub stars
99contributors
795commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
7open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Star history carried forward from 2026-07-20: GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository admins, so it can no longer be collected. The repository has 2097 stars today.
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 15 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 2,069 ★ / 1,261 ⇿
2,069Stars
1,261Forks
88Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

Star history is shown as collected on 2026-07-20. GitHub restricted the stargazers API to repository administrators in July 2026, so this series can no longer be extended; the current star total above remains live.

04008001,2001,6002,0002,4002,0691,261282022-082024-082026-09
Major 41Minor 40Patch 3

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 14:13 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
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 27/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 10 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 17 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
6Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
8Vulnerabilities2 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 160

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 160 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@babel/code-frame7.27.1indirect
npm@babel/helper-validator-identifier7.27.1indirect
npm@google-cloud/functions-framework5.0.2indirect
npm@types/body-parser1.19.6indirect
npm@types/connect3.4.38indirect
npm@types/express5.0.6indirect
npm@types/express-serve-static-core5.1.0indirect
npm@types/http-errors2.0.5indirect
npm@types/node25.0.3indirect
npm@types/normalize-package-data2.4.4indirect
npm@types/qs6.14.0indirect
npm@types/range-parser1.2.7indirect
npm@types/send1.2.1indirect
npm@types/serve-static2.2.0indirect
npmaccepts2.0.0indirect
npmajv8.18.0indirect
npmajv-formats2.1.1indirect
npmavailable-typed-arrays1.0.7indirect
npmbignumber.js9.3.1indirect
npmbody-parser2.3.0indirect
npmbytes3.1.2indirect
npmcall-bind1.0.8indirect
npmcall-bind-apply-helpers1.0.2indirect
npmcall-bound1.0.4indirect
npmcloudevents10.0.0indirect
npmcontent-disposition1.0.1indirect
npmcontent-type1.0.5indirect
npmcontent-type2.0.0indirect
npmcookie0.7.2indirect
npmcookie-signature1.2.2indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdefine-data-property1.1.4indirect
npmdepd2.0.0indirect
npmdunder-proto1.0.1indirect
npmee-first1.1.1indirect
npmencodeurl2.0.0indirect
npmes-define-property1.0.1indirect
npmes-errors1.3.0indirect
npmes-object-atoms1.1.1indirect
npmescape-html1.0.3indirect
npmetag1.8.1indirect
npmexpress5.2.1indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmfast-uri3.1.7indirect
npmfinalhandler2.1.1indirect
npmfind-up-simple1.0.1indirect
npmfor-each0.3.5indirect
npmforwarded0.2.0indirect
npmfresh2.0.0indirect
npmfunction-bind1.1.2indirect
npmgenerator-function2.0.1indirect
npmget-intrinsic1.3.0indirect
npmget-proto1.0.1indirect
npmgopd1.2.0indirect
npmhas-property-descriptors1.0.2indirect
npmhas-symbols1.1.0indirect
npmhas-tostringtag1.0.2indirect
npmhasown2.0.2indirect
npmhosted-git-info7.0.2indirect
npmhttp-errors2.0.1indirect
npmiconv-lite0.7.2indirect
npmindex-to-position1.1.0indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmipaddr.js1.9.1indirect
npmis-arguments1.2.0indirect
npmis-callable1.2.7indirect
npmis-generator-function1.1.2indirect
npmis-promise4.0.0indirect
npmis-regex1.2.1indirect
npmis-typed-array1.1.15indirect
npmjs-tokens4.0.0indirect
npmjson-bigint1.0.0indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse1.0.0indirect
npmlru-cache10.4.3indirect
npmmath-intrinsics1.1.0indirect
npmmedia-typer1.1.0indirect
npmmerge-descriptors2.0.0indirect
npmmime-db1.54.0indirect
npmmime-types3.0.2indirect
npmminimist1.2.8indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnegotiator1.0.0indirect
npmnormalize-package-data6.0.2indirect
npmobject-inspect1.13.4indirect
npmon-finished2.4.1indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmparse-json8.3.0indirect
npmparseurl1.3.3indirect
npmpath-to-regexp8.4.0indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmpossible-typed-array-names1.1.0indirect
npmprocess0.11.10indirect
npmproxy-addr2.0.7indirect
npmqs6.16.0indirect
npmrange-parser1.2.1indirect
npmraw-body3.0.2indirect
npmread-package-up11.0.0indirect
npmread-pkg9.0.1indirect
npmrequire-from-string2.0.2indirect
npmrouter2.2.0indirect
npmsafe-regex-test1.1.0indirect
npmsafer-buffer2.1.2indirect
npmsemver7.7.2indirect
npmsend1.2.1indirect
npmserve-static2.2.1indirect
npmset-function-length1.2.2indirect
npmsetprototypeof1.2.0indirect
npmside-channel1.1.1indirect
npmside-channel-list1.0.1indirect
npmside-channel-map1.0.1indirect
npmside-channel-weakmap1.0.2indirect
npmspdx-correct3.2.0indirect
npmspdx-exceptions2.5.0indirect
npmspdx-expression-parse3.0.1indirect
npmspdx-license-ids3.0.21indirect
npmstatuses2.0.2indirect
npmtoidentifier1.0.1indirect
npmtype-fest4.41.0indirect
npmtype-is2.1.0indirect
npmundici-types7.16.0indirect
npmunicorn-magic0.1.0indirect
npmunpipe1.0.0indirect
npmutil0.12.5indirect
npmuuid8.3.2indirect
npmvalidate-npm-package-license3.0.4indirect
npmvary1.1.2indirect
npmwhich-typed-array1.1.19indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup4—indirect
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIclick8.1.3indirect
PyPIcloudpickle—indirect
PyPIcloudpickle3.0.0indirect
PyPIghapi—indirect
PyPIgoogle-adk—indirect
PyPIgoogle-antigravity—indirect
PyPIgoogle-auth—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-aiplatform—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-dlp—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-logging—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-pubsub—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-secret-manager—indirect
PyPIgoogle-cloud-storage—indirect
PyPIgoogle-genai—indirect
PyPIiso8601—indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjsonschema—indirect
PyPIjwt1.3.1indirect
PyPImarko—indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIpyyaml—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIsecops—indirect
PyPItftest—indirect
PyPIyamale—indirect
PyPIyamllint—indirect
PyPIyapf—indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 132 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 28 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
click8.1.3indirecthigh18.3.3
uuid8.3.2indirecthigh113.0.1

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.

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.