Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 23:45 UTC

TNG / ArchUnit

A Java architecture test library, to specify and assert architecture rules in plain Java

JavaApache-2.0★ 3,867 stars⑂ 353 forkssince Apr 2017View on GitHub ↗

TNG/ArchUnit holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (66/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

TNG Technology Consulting GmbHOrganization · verified domain
228 followers48 public repossince Oct 2010

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

94Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
29.8/36Commit cadence — 43/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 220 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year220
human_commit_share0.65
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year43

Release discipline

92Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 46 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 24 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~99.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count46
latest_release_tagv1.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release24
mean_days_between_releases99.6
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?

80Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

89Excellent
How it's scored
58.2/60Stars — 3,867 stars
21.2/25Forks — 353 forks
9.3/15Watchers — 49 watchers
Inputs used
forks353
stars3,867
watchers49
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 (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_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 75% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 95 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 13 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled95
top_contributor_share0.749

Issue & PR responsiveness

74Good
How it's scored
31.6/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
21.2/30PR acceptance — 729/1,032 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs729
open_issues160
closed_issues487
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d8
prs_decided_30d9
issue_closed_ratio0.753
closed_unmerged_prs303
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2

Ownership & stewardship

91Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
17/25Owner reach — 228 followers of TNG
24.3/25Track record — 48 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers228
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginTNG
public_repos48
account_age_days5,855

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

73Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://archunit.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttps://archunit.org
docs_sitehttps://archunit.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

64Moderate
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 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 13 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no 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 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages97
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 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 97 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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 52 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.8
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — archunit-3rd-party-test/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-junit4/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-junit5/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 35 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsarchunit-3rd-party-test/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-junit4/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-junit5/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-junit6/build.gradle, archunit-example/example-plain/build.gradle, archunit-integration-test/junit4/build.gradle, archunit-integration-test/junit5/build.gradle, archunit-integration-test/junit6/build.gradle, archunit-integration-test/shared/build.gradle, archunit-java-modules-test/build.gradle, archunit-junit/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit4/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit5/aggregator/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit5/api/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit5/engine-api/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit5/engine/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit6/aggregator/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit6/api/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit6/engine-api/build.gradle, archunit-junit/junit6/engine/build.gradle, archunit-maven-test/build.gradle, archunit-self-test-library/build.gradle, archunit/build.gradle, build.gradle, buildSrc/build.gradle, docs/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0.35

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 14/1,446 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes128,939
source_files_sampled1,446
oversized_source_files14

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
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

3,867GitHub stars
95contributors
220commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
46releases
1bus factor
160open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 353 ⇿
0Stars
353Forks
45Releases

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.

012525037535052017-042022-012026-10
Major 1Minor 22Patch 21

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 23:44 UTC

8Binary-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
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 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 13 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 97

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 97 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsactivesupport7.2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.0.1indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script2.4.1indirect
RubyGemscoffee-script-source1.12.2indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscommonmarker0.23.10indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.7indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool3.0.2indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.0indirect
RubyGemsdnsruby1.72.2indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsethon0.16.0indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsexecjs2.9.1indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.0indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgemoji4.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages232indirect
RubyGemsgithub-pages-health-check1.18.2indirect
RubyGemshtml-pipeline2.14.3indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjekyll3.10.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-avatar0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-coffeescript1.2.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-commonmark-ghpages0.5.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-default-layout0.1.5indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-feed0.17.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-gist1.5.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-github-metadata2.16.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-include-cache0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-mentions1.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-optional-front-matter0.3.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-paginate1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-readme-index0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-redirect-from0.16.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-relative-links0.6.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-remote-theme0.4.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.8.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sitemap1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-swiss1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-architect0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-cayman0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-dinky0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-hacker0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-leap-day0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-merlot0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-midnight0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-minimal0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-modernist0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-primer0.6.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-slate0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-tactile0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-theme-time-machine0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-titles-from-headings0.5.3indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjemoji0.13.0indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.4.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.9.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.3.6indirect
RubyGemsminima2.5.1indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.27.0indirect
RubyGemsnet-http0.9.1indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.4indirect
RubyGemsoctokit4.25.1indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix5.1.1indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.30.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.3.2indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass3.7.4indirect
RubyGemssass-listen4.0.0indirect
RubyGemssawyer0.9.2indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.4.1indirect
RubyGemssimpleidn0.2.3indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table1.8.0indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.4.1indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsuri1.1.1indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 97 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rubyzip2.3.2indirecthigh13.4.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with TNG/ArchUnit. Read them side by side →

99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional98svix/svix-webhooksThe open source and enterprise-ready webhooks service 🦀Exceptional98mattermost/mattermost-mobileNext generation iOS and Android apps for Mattermost in React NativeExceptional98elastic/logstashLogstash - transport and process your logs, events, or other dataExceptional98jitsi/jitsi-meetJitsi Meet - Secure, Simple and Scalable Video Conferences that you use as a standalone app or embed in your web application.Exceptional98Automattic/wp-calypsoThe JavaScript and API powered WordPress.comExceptional

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.