# MaterializeInc/materialize — health index 98/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository MaterializeInc/materialize by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional 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/MaterializeInc/materialize
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/MaterializeInc/materialize
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/MaterializeInc/materialize/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/m/MaterializeInc/materialize.svg
- Inspected: 2026-10-02
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 64/100 | Moderate |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 94/100 | Exceptional |
| Security | 16% | 78/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 95/100 | Exceptional |

The weighted overall 86 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | The live data layer for apps and AI agents. Create up-to-the-second views into your business, just using SQL |
| Classification | network-service, cli, mcp-server, web-ui, library |
| Homepage | https://materialize.com |
| Primary language | Rust |
| Stars | 6,380 |
| Forks | 514 |
| Created | 2019-02-22 |
| Last push | 2026-10-02 |
| Latest release | v26.43.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 5,595 |
| Bus factor | 7 |
| Topics | rust, database, sql, streaming, kafka, distributed-systems, postgresql-dialect, materialized-view, stream-processing, postgresql, streaming-data, operational-data-store, data-store, cdc, data-mesh, mysql, sql-server |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| crates | mz-avro | 0.7.0 | 2 |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Development activity — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 5595 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 8 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~4.7 days |
| 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 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 64/100 (Moderate)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 6,380 stars |
| Forks | partial | 22.6 / 25 | 514 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.2 / 15 | 69 watchers |

### Community health — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 8/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 6.4 / 80 | 2 downloads/month across crates |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 86/100 (Excellent)

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) — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 51.3 / 54 | 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 18.9 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 16% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 96 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 42 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 25.1 / 30 | 24975/29908 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.7 / 25 | 209 followers of MaterializeInc |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 160 public repos, account ~7 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on crates |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 1511 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 12 / 20 | 2 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 94/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), clippy.toml, eslint.config.js, misc/mcp-materialize-agents/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), misc/mcp-materialize/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), misc/wasm/Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black]), rustfmt.toml, src/adapter-types/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/adapter/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/alloc-default/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/alloc/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/arrow-util/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/audit-log/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/auth/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/authenticator/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/avro/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-glue-schema-registry/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-secrets-controller/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-util/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/balancerd/Cargo.toml ([lints]) |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://materialize.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 17 topics |
| Wiki | met | 10 / 10 | — |

## Security — 78/100 (Good)

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 — 73/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 30 out of 30 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 17 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 | met | 5 / 5 | project is fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | GitHub workflow tokens follow principle of least privilege |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 74 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the crates:mz-avro@0.7.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 50 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | met | 25 / 25 | no indirect dependency carries a known advisory |
| No advisories left outstanding | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### 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 — 95/100 (Exceptional)

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 — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, console/AGENTS.md, console/CLAUDE.md, doc/user/AGENTS.md, doc/user/CLAUDE.md, src/compute-types/AGENTS.md, src/compute-types/CLAUDE.md, src/compute/AGENTS.md, src/compute/CLAUDE.md, src/transform/AGENTS.md, src/transform/CLAUDE.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://materialize.com/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 75 of 76 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 89/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | Cargo.toml, misc/wasm/Cargo.toml, misc/wasm/src/sql-lexer-wasm/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), clippy.toml, eslint.config.js, misc/mcp-materialize-agents/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), misc/mcp-materialize/pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff]), misc/wasm/Cargo.toml ([workspace.lints]), pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff], [tool.black]), rustfmt.toml, src/adapter-types/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/adapter/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/alloc-default/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/alloc/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/arrow-util/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/audit-log/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/auth/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/authenticator/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/avro/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-glue-schema-registry/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-secrets-controller/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/aws-util/Cargo.toml ([lints]), src/balancerd/Cargo.toml ([lints]) |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | console/tsconfig.json, misc/python/materialize/py.typed, misc/vscode-ext/tsconfig.json, test/lang/js/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, Nix, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 80 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 21 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |

### Code legibility for models — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Rust (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.3 / 55 | 175/3625 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | src/expr/src/scalar.proto, src/fivetran-destination/proto/common.proto, src/fivetran-destination/proto/destination_sdk.proto, src/interchange/testdata/benchmark.proto, src/mysql-util/src/desc.proto, src/persist-client/src/batch.proto, src/persist-client/src/internal/diff.proto, src/persist-client/src/internal/service.proto, src/persist-client/src/internal/state.proto, src/persist-types/src/arrow.proto, src/persist-types/src/stats.proto, src/persist/src/persist.proto, src/postgres-util/src/desc.proto, src/prof/src/pprof_types.proto, src/proto/src/chrono.proto, src/proto/src/proto.proto, src/repr/src/adt/array.proto, src/repr/src/adt/char.proto, src/repr/src/adt/date.proto, src/repr/src/adt/interval.proto, src/repr/src/adt/mz_acl_item.proto, src/repr/src/adt/numeric.proto, src/repr/src/adt/range.proto, src/repr/src/adt/timestamp.proto, src/repr/src/adt/varchar.proto, src/repr/src/catalog_item_id.proto, src/repr/src/relation_and_scalar.proto, src/repr/src/role_id.proto, src/repr/src/row.proto, src/repr/src/strconv.proto, src/repr/src/timestamp.proto, src/sql-server-util/src/desc.proto, src/storage-types/src/errors.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources/kafka.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources/load_generator.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources/mysql.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources/postgres.proto, src/storage-types/src/sources/sql_server.proto, src/testdrive/src/format/protobuf/well_known_imports.proto, src/txn-wal/src/txns.proto |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | demos, example, examples, notebooks |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-auth' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-alloc' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-adapter' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-aws-util' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-audit-log' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-balancerd' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'mz-arrow-util' from its registry
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 3000 of 3698 packages (counts remain complete)

## 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