Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 04:36 UTC

SDA-SE / sda-dropwizard-commons

A set of libraries to bootstrap services easily that follow the patterns and specifications promoted by the SDA SE

JavaMIT★ 45 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Dec 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined
#framework#dropwizard#microservice#hacktoberfest#bedrock

SDA-SE/sda-dropwizard-commons holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SDA SE Open Industry SolutionsOrganization
34 followers9 public repossince May 2017

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

99Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 439 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year439
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~1.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tag9.3.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases1.9

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak
How it's scored
26.7/60Stars — 45 stars
9.3/25Forks — 14 forks
7.4/15Watchers — 22 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars45
watchers22
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
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?

72Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

60Moderate
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 49% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 48 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled48
top_contributor_share0.492

Issue & PR responsiveness

84Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
16.2/30PR acceptance — 2,399/4,444 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs2,399
open_issues0
closed_issues35
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs2,045
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.

Ownership & stewardship

76Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
11.1/25Owner reach — 34 followers of SDA-SE
19.3/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers34
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginSDA-SE
public_repos9
account_age_days3,341
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

74Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 17 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://sda-se.github.io/sda-dropwizard-commons/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsframework, dropwizard, microservice, hacktoberfest, bedrock
has_wikino
homepagehttps://sda-se.github.io/sda-dropwizard-commons/
docs_sitehttps://sda-se.github.io/sda-dropwizard-commons/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

66Good
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
6.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 5 out of 5 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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — 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 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
3.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
4.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.6

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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

61Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/827 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes41,119
source_files_sampled827
oversized_source_files0

Machine-readable interfaces

80Excellent
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — sda-commons-server-cloudevents/asyncapi.yaml, sda-commons-shared-asyncapi/asyncapi.yaml
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filessda-commons-server-cloudevents/asyncapi.yaml, sda-commons-shared-asyncapi/asyncapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

45GitHub stars
48contributors
439commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.6 / 10
6.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 04:35 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
9Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests5 out of 5 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0Dangerous-Workflowdangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-bom—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-client-jersey—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-dependencies—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-auth—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-auth-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-circuitbreaker—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-cloudevents—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-consumer—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-cors—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-dropwizard—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-healthcheck—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-hibernate—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-hibernate-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-jackson—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-kafka—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-kafka-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-key-mgmt—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-mongo-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-openapi—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-opentelemetry—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-prometheus—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-s3—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-s3-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-security—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-spring-data-mongo—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-trace—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-weld—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-server-weld-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-asyncapi—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-certificates—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-error—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-forms—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-tracing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-wiremock-testing—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-shared-yaml—indirect
Mavenorg.sdase.commons:sda-commons-starter—indirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with SDA-SE/sda-dropwizard-commons. Read them side by side →

97gofr-dev/gofrAn opinionated GoLang framework for accelerated microservice development. Built in support for databases and observability.Exceptional100fastify/fastifyFast and low overhead web framework, for Node.jsExceptional99gofiber/fiber⚡️ Express inspired web framework written in GoExceptional98nuxt/nuxtthe full-stack Vue frameworkExceptional98symfony/symfonyThe Symfony PHP frameworkExceptional98nestjs/nestA progressive Node.js framework for building efficient, scalable, and enterprise-grade server-side applications with TypeScript/JavaScript 🚀Exceptional

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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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