Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 11:21 UTC

airbnb / rudolph

A serverless sync server for Santa, built on AWS

Go · HCLMIT★ 112 stars⑂ 22 forkssince Aug 2021View on GitHub ↗

KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

airbnb/rudolph holds a health index of 57 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (44/100). It was last updated 53 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Moderate

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.

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)

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 55 is calibrated to 57 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AirbnbOrganization · verified domain

5,719 followers205 public repossince Mar 2011

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Go	github.com/airbnb/rudolph	v1.0.7	-	10	53 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

50Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

28At Risk

How it's scored

18/36	Push recency — last push 53 days ago
2.8/36	Commit cadence — 4/52 weeks with commits
6.3/18	Commit volume — 4 commits in the last year
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

commits_last_year	4
human_commit_share	1
days_since_last_push	53
active_weeks_last_year	4

Release discipline

84Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 53 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~198 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	10
latest_release_tag	v1.0.7
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	53
mean_days_between_releases	198

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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

48Weak

How it's scored

33.2/60	Stars — 112 stars
11/25	Forks — 22 forks
4.3/15	Watchers — 7 watchers

Inputs used

forks	22
stars	112
watchers	7
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

72Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
6.3/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	yes
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	yes

Sustainability & Governance

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

70Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

31At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.8/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 65% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
3/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.654

Issue & PR responsiveness

61Moderate

How it's scored

15.3/42	Issue resolution — 36% of issues closed
28.7/30	PR acceptance — 22/23 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

merged_prs	22
open_issues	7
closed_issues	4
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.364
closed_unmerged_prs	1
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

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

Ownership & stewardship

100Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
25/25	Owner reach — 5,719 followers of airbnb
25/25	Track record — 205 public repos, account ~15 yr old

Inputs used

followers	5,719
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	airbnb
public_repos	205
account_age_days	5,652

Package maintenance

100Exceptional

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35	Publish recency — latest publish 53 days ago
20/20	Version history — 10 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	github.com/airbnb/rudolph
ecosystems	go
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	53

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
25/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	yes
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	yes
has_description	yes

Security

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

45Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5	Code-Review — Found 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
0.8/2.5	Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0.8/7.5	Maintained — 2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5	Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
3.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	12
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	6
scorecard_aggregate	3.9

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

67Good

How it's scored

17.2/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/lambda 1.53.3 (moderate 5.9), github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go 1.51.6 (unknown)
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
32.7/40	No advisories left outstanding — 2 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,680 days ago

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	8
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	50
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	moderate 2, unknown 3
direct_affected_packages	2

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 50 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.

63Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

20At Risk

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
20.1/40	Legible commit history — 20 of 53 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.377
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

68Good

How it's scored

18/18	One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Go (statically typed)
10/10	Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 53
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	go.sum
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

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

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/167 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Go
largest_source_bytes	17,053
source_files_sampled	167
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example, examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	example, examples
has_mcp_signal	no
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

112GitHub stars

8contributors

4commits, last 12 months

53days since last push

10releases

1bus factor

7open issues

Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 22 ⇿

0Stars

22Forks

9Releases

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.

Major 1Minor 0Patch 8

Each point covers 5 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10

3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-19 11:21 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	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
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6	Code-Review	Found 17/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
3	Contributors	project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
0	Dependency-Update-Tool	no update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
1	Maintained	2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9	Security-Policy	security policy file detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
5	Vulnerabilities	5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
Go	github.com/aws/aws-lambda-go	`v1.46.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go	`v1.51.6`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2	`v1.26.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config	`v1.27.9`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/dynamodb/attributevalue	`v1.13.11`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/dynamodb/expression	`v1.7.11`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/dynamodb	`v1.31.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/lambda	`v1.53.3`	go.mod
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`v1.6.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`v1.8.0`	go.mod
Go	github.com/spf13/viper	`v1.18.2`	go.mod
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`v1.9.0`	go.mod

All dependencies 50

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 38 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Go	github.com/aws/aws-lambda-go	`1.46.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go	`1.51.6`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2	`1.26.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/config	`1.27.9`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/dynamodb/attributevalue	`1.13.11`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/dynamodb/expression	`1.7.11`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/dynamodb	`1.31.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/lambda	`1.53.3`	direct
Go	github.com/google/uuid	`1.6.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/cobra	`1.8.0`	direct
Go	github.com/spf13/viper	`1.18.2`	direct
Go	github.com/stretchr/testify	`1.9.0`	direct
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/aws/protocol/eventstream	`1.6.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/credentials	`1.17.9`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/feature/ec2/imds	`1.16.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/configsources	`1.3.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/endpoints/v2	`2.6.4`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/internal/ini	`1.8.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/dynamodbstreams	`1.20.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/accept-encoding	`1.11.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/endpoint-discovery	`1.9.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/internal/presigned-url	`1.11.6`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sso	`1.20.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/ssooidc	`1.23.3`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/sts	`1.28.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/aws/smithy-go	`1.20.1`	indirect
Go	github.com/davecgh/go-spew	`1.1.2-0.20180830191138-d8f796af33cc`	indirect
Go	github.com/fsnotify/fsnotify	`1.7.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/hashicorp/hcl	`1.0.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/inconshreveable/mousetrap	`1.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/jmespath/go-jmespath	`0.4.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/magiconair/properties	`1.8.7`	indirect
Go	github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure	`1.5.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pelletier/go-toml/v2	`2.2.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/pmezard/go-difflib	`1.0.1-0.20181226105442-5d4384ee4fb2`	indirect
Go	github.com/sagikazarmark/locafero	`0.4.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/sagikazarmark/slog-shim	`0.1.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/sourcegraph/conc	`0.3.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/afero	`1.11.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/cast	`1.6.0`	indirect
Go	github.com/spf13/pflag	`1.0.5`	indirect
Go	github.com/stretchr/objx	`0.5.2`	indirect
Go	github.com/subosito/gotenv	`1.6.0`	indirect
Go	go.uber.org/multierr	`1.11.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/exp	`0.0.0-20240325151524-a685a6edb6d8`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/sys	`0.18.0`	indirect
Go	golang.org/x/text	`0.14.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/ini.v1	`1.67.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v2	`2.4.0`	indirect
Go	gopkg.in/yaml.v3	`3.0.1`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 50 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/service/lambda	`1.53.3`	direct	moderate	2	`1.97.3`
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go-v2/aws/protocol/eventstream	`1.6.1`	indirect	moderate	2	`1.97.3`
github.com/aws/aws-sdk-go	`1.51.6`	direct	unknown	2	—
golang.org/x/sys	`0.18.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.44.0`
golang.org/x/text	`0.14.0`	indirect	unknown	1	`0.39.0`

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.

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 — Go.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records