Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 23:56 UTC

GoogleCloudPlatform / terraform-google-cloud-armor

Deploy Cloud Armor security policy

HCL · GoApache-2.0★ 56 stars⑂ 47 forkssince Dec 2022View on GitHub ↗

GoogleCloudPlatform/terraform-google-cloud-armor holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (48/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

21,223 followers1,497 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?

73Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 3 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence12/52 weeks with commits
13.4/18Commit volume30 commits in the last year
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
commits_last_year30
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases20 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 3 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~89.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv8.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases89.7
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?

60Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.2/60Stars56 stars
13.9/25Forks47 forks
8.5/15Watchers35 watchers
Inputs used
forks47
stars56
watchers35
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code 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_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 27% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth15 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled15
top_contributor_share0.27
How it's scored
39.6/42Issue resolution94% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance105/140 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 15/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs105
open_issues3
closed_issues50
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.943
closed_unmerged_prs35
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach21,223 followers of GoogleCloudPlatform
25/25Track record1,497 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers21,223
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginGoogleCloudPlatform
public_repos1,497
account_age_days4,992
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

77Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-armor/google
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscft-terraform, compute, networking
has_wikino
homepagehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-armor/google
docs_sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/modules/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-armor/google
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

48Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-ReviewFound 15/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
2.2/7.5Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
1.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities37 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

48Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno 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.
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeHCL without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/8 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHCL
largest_source_bytes20,078
source_files_sampled8
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

56GitHub stars
15contributors
30commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
20releases
2bus factor
3open issues
package ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10
4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 23:55 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-Tests20 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 15/25 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
3Maintained3 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 3
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities37 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 76

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 76 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gocloud.google.com/go0.116.0indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute1.28.3indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/compute/metadata0.5.2indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/iam1.2.2indirect
Gocloud.google.com/go/storage1.47.0indirect
Gogithub.com/agext/levenshtein1.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/alexflint/go-filemutex1.3.0indirect
Gogithub.com/apparentlymart/go-textseg/v1515.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/aws/aws-sdk-go1.45.5indirect
Gogithub.com/bgentry/go-netrc0.0.0-20140422174119-9fd32a8b3d3dindirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.2-0.20180830191138-d8f796af33ccindirect
Gogithub.com/go-errors/errors1.5.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonpointer0.21.0indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/jsonreference0.20.2indirect
Gogithub.com/go-openapi/swag0.23.0indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/groupcache0.0.0-20210331224755-41bb18bfe9daindirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.4indirect
Gogithub.com/google/gnostic-models0.6.9indirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmp0.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/google/s2a-go0.1.8indirect
Gogithub.com/google/uuid1.6.0indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/enterprise-certificate-proxy0.3.4indirect
Gogithub.com/googleapis/gax-go/v22.14.0indirect
Gogithub.com/googlecloudplatform/cloud-foundation-toolkit/infra/blueprint-test0.17.6indirect
Gogithub.com/gruntwork-io/terratest0.48.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/errwrap1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp0.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-getter1.7.5indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-getter/v22.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-multierror1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-safetemp1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/go-version1.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/hcl0.0.0-20170504190234-a4b07c25de5findirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/hcl/v22.22.0indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/terraform-config-inspect0.0.0-20250203082807-efaa306e97b4indirect
Gogithub.com/hashicorp/terraform-json0.24.0indirect
Gogithub.com/jinzhu/copier0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/jmespath/go-jmespath0.4.0indirect
Gogithub.com/josharian/intern1.0.0indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compress1.16.7indirect
Gogithub.com/mailru/easyjson0.7.7indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-shellwords1.0.12indirect
Gogithub.com/mattn/go-zglob0.0.4indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-homedir1.1.0indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-testing-interface1.14.2-0.20210821155943-2d9075ca8770indirect
Gogithub.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/pmezard/go-difflib1.0.1-0.20181226105442-5d4384ee4fb2indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.10.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/gjson1.18.0indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/match1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/pretty1.2.1indirect
Gogithub.com/tidwall/sjson1.2.5indirect
Gogithub.com/tmccombs/hcl2json0.6.4indirect
Gogithub.com/ulikunitz/xz0.5.11indirect
Gogithub.com/zclconf/go-cty1.15.1indirect
Gogo.opencensus.io0.24.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/crypto0.32.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/mod0.23.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.34.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/oauth20.24.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sync0.11.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.29.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.21.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/tools0.26.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/xerrors0.0.0-20220907171357-04be3eba64a2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/api0.206.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine1.6.8indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto0.0.0-20241113202542-65e8d215514findirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/api0.0.0-20241104194629-dd2ea8efbc28indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc0.0.0-20241104194629-dd2ea8efbc28indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.67.1indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.35.1indirect
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v33.0.1indirect
Gok8s.io/kube-openapi0.0.0-20241212222426-2c72e554b1e7indirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/kustomize/kyaml0.19.0indirect
Gosigs.k8s.io/yaml1.4.0indirect
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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