# JetBrains/permify — health index 71/100 (Good)

> Inspection of the public repository JetBrains/permify by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/JetBrains/permify
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/JetBrains/permify
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/JetBrains/permify/report
- Badge: https://inspect.software/badge/v1/JetBrains/permify.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-19
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 83/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 12/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 73/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 76/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 59/100 | Moderate |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 82/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | An open-source authorization as a service inspired by Google Zanzibar, designed to build and manage fine-grained and scalable authorization systems for any application. — Permify is now part of FusionAuth 🎉 |
| Classification | network-service, web-ui, cli |
| Homepage | https://permify.co/ |
| Primary language | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 |
| Stars | 2 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-07-01 |
| Last push | 2026-10-13 |
| Latest release | v1.6.6-jb.5 |
| Commits (last year) | 479 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Fork | yes |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/Permify/permify | v1.7.5 | — |

## Vitality — 83/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 83/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 5 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 19.4 / 36 | 28/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 479 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 84/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 1 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 75 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 12.6 / 27 | cadence unknown (single release) |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 12/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 2 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 1 watchers |

### Community health — 25/100 (At Risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (AGPL-3.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 73/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 38/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 5.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 75% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 67 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 21 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 89/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.7 / 30 | 8/9 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 2/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | partial | 12 / 15 | Found 7/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 13,893 followers of JetBrains |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 871 public repos, account ~15 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 76/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 11 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.js, .golangci.yml, playground/package.json ("eslintConfig") |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://permify.co/ |
| Repository description | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 59/100 (Moderate)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 68/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 7 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | partial | 6 / 7.5 | Found 7/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 21 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 22 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |
| SAST | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | partial | 4.5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 205 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 22/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 1282 resolved dependencies against OSV; 33 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 2.5 / 35 | 14 affected: github.com/jackc/pgx/v5 v5.8.0 (critical 9.8), google.golang.org/grpc v1.78.0 (critical 9.1), axios 1.13.6 (high 8.7), +11 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 13.9 / 40 | 10 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 214 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 82/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 53/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.permify.co/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | partial | 37.8 / 40 | 61 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.js, .golangci.yml, playground/package.json ("eslintConfig") |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | playground/tsconfig.json, sdk/typescript/grpc/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 8 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8 |

### Code legibility for models — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Go (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.2 / 55 | 11/329 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | docs/api-reference/openapi.json, proto/base/v1/base.proto, proto/base/v1/errors.proto, proto/base/v1/openapi.proto, proto/base/v1/service.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Community profile unavailable
- go package 'github.com/Permify/permify' points at a different repository (https://github.com/Permify/permify); excluded from ecosystem scoring

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt