Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 04:57 UTC

Kotlin / kotlinx.serialization

Kotlin multiplatform / multi-format serialization

KotlinApache-2.0★ 5,943 stars⑂ 677 forkssince Jul 2017View on GitHub ↗

Kotlin/kotlinx.serialization holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (90/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (44/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

78
overall / 100
Good

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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

KotlinOrganization · verified domain
3,407 followers140 public repossince Feb 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?

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence20/52 weeks with commits
15.5/18Commit volume52 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained1 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year52
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year20
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases37 releases published
27/36Release recencylatest release 140 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~72.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count37
latest_release_tagv1.11.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release140
mean_days_between_releases72.6
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?

90Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars5,943 stars
23.6/25Forks677 forks
11.1/15Watchers100 watchers
Inputs used
forks677
stars5,943
watchers100
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

74Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 55% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.547
How it's scored
36.7/42Issue resolution87% of issues closed
24.8/30PR acceptance811/980 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 22/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs811
open_issues277
closed_issues1,926
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d7
prs_decided_30d7
issue_closed_ratio0.874
closed_unmerged_prs169
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach3,407 followers of Kotlin
25/25Track record140 public repos, account ~14 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,407
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginKotlin
public_repos140
account_age_days5,305

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests0 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicskotlin, serialization, json, cbor, protobuf
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

46Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
3.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0/2.5CI-Tests0 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-ReviewFound 22/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
6/7.5Maintained1 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories16
affected_packages6
assessed_packages85
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 5, moderate 1
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 85 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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)llms.txt served by the project website (https://kotlinlang.org/llms.txt)
39.5/40Legible commit history74 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://kotlinlang.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.74
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapbenchmark/build.gradle.kts, bom/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingKotlin (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesyarn.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbenchmark/build.gradle.kts, bom/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, buildSrc/build.gradle.kts, core/build.gradle.kts, formats/cbor/build.gradle.kts, formats/hocon/build.gradle.kts, formats/json-io/build.gradle.kts, formats/json-okio/build.gradle.kts, formats/json-tests/build.gradle.kts, formats/json/build.gradle.kts, formats/properties/build.gradle.kts, formats/protobuf/build.gradle.kts, formats/protobuf/proto-test-model/build.gradle.kts, guide/build.gradle.kts, integration-test/build.gradle.kts, rules/rules-integration-tests/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeKotlin (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/677 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes36,591
source_files_sampled677
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/AbstractHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ContextualHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/EnumWithProtoNumber.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/FieldNumberClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/LegacyMapHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ListClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/MapClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/NestedCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/NullableNestedCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionalClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionalCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionsClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/PackedListClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ScalarHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/SealedHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/SerialNameClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/common/schema.proto, formats/protobuf/proto-test-model/testProto/test_data.proto, formats/protobuf/proto-test-model/testProto/test_messages_proto3.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, sample
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, sample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesformats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/AbstractHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ContextualHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/EnumWithProtoNumber.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/FieldNumberClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/LegacyMapHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ListClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/MapClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/NestedCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/NullableNestedCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionalClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionalCollections.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/OptionsClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/PackedListClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/ScalarHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/SealedHolder.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/SerialNameClass.proto, formats/protobuf/jvmTest/resources/common/schema.proto, formats/protobuf/proto-test-model/testProto/test_data.proto, formats/protobuf/proto-test-model/testProto/test_messages_proto3.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

5,943GitHub stars
100contributors
52commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
37releases
1bus factor
277open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 677 ⇿
0Stars
677Forks
37Releases

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.

012525037550062575067292017-092022-032026-08
Major 1Minor 11Patch 15

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 04:56 UTC

5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
0CI-Tests0 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 22/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 13 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained1 commit(s) and 9 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities16 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 85

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 85 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@isaacs/cliui8.0.2indirect
npm@pkgjs/parseargs0.11.0indirect
npmansi-regex5.0.1indirect
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles4.3.0indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.3indirect
npmargparse2.0.1indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbrace-expansion2.0.1indirect
npmbrowser-stdout1.3.1indirect
npmbuffer-from1.1.2indirect
npmcamelcase6.3.0indirect
npmchalk4.1.2indirect
npmchokidar4.0.3indirect
npmcliui8.0.1indirect
npmcolor-convert2.0.1indirect
npmcolor-name1.1.4indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.6indirect
npmdebug4.3.6indirect
npmdebug4.4.0indirect
npmdecamelize4.0.0indirect
npmdiff7.0.0indirect
npmeastasianwidth0.2.0indirect
npmemoji-regex8.0.0indirect
npmemoji-regex9.2.2indirect
npmescalade3.1.1indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmescape-string-regexp4.0.0indirect
npmfind-up5.0.0indirect
npmflat5.0.2indirect
npmforeground-child3.3.1indirect
npmformat-util1.0.5indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmglob10.4.5indirect
npmhas-flag4.0.0indirect
npmhe1.2.0indirect
npmis-fullwidth-code-point3.0.0indirect
npmis-path-inside3.0.3indirect
npmis-plain-obj2.1.0indirect
npmis-unicode-supported0.1.0indirect
npmisexe2.0.0indirect
npmjackspeak3.4.3indirect
npmjs-yaml4.1.0indirect
npmkotlin-web-helpers3.0.0indirect
npmlocate-path6.0.0indirect
npmlog-symbols4.1.0indirect
npmlru-cache10.4.3indirect
npmminimatch9.0.5indirect
npmminipass7.1.2indirect
npmmocha11.7.5indirect
npmms2.1.2indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmp-limit3.1.0indirect
npmp-locate5.0.0indirect
npmpackage-json-from-dist1.0.1indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmpath-scurry1.11.1indirect
npmpicocolors1.1.1indirect
npmrandombytes2.1.0indirect
npmreaddirp4.1.2indirect
npmrequire-directory2.1.1indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.2.1indirect
npmserialize-javascript6.0.2indirect
npmshebang-command2.0.0indirect
npmshebang-regex3.0.0indirect
npmsignal-exit4.1.0indirect
npmsource-map0.6.1indirect
npmsource-map-support0.5.21indirect
npmstring-width4.2.3indirect
npmstring-width5.1.2indirect
npmstrip-ansi6.0.1indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.1.2indirect
npmstrip-json-comments3.1.1indirect
npmsupports-color7.2.0indirect
npmsupports-color8.1.1indirect
npmwhich2.0.2indirect
npmworkerpool9.3.4indirect
npmwrap-ansi7.0.0indirect
npmwrap-ansi8.1.0indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs17.7.2indirect
npmyargs-parser21.1.1indirect
npmyargs-unparser2.0.0indirect
npmyocto-queue0.1.0indirect
Dependency advisories 6

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 85 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 6 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
brace-expansion2.0.1indirecthigh55.0.9
glob10.4.5indirecthigh111.1.0
js-yaml4.1.0indirecthigh44.3.1
minimatch9.0.5indirecthigh310.2.3
serialize-javascript6.0.2indirecthigh27.0.5
diff7.0.0indirectmoderate18.0.3

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.