Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-26 06:26 UTC

aliyun / aliyun-odps-jdbc

JDBC Driver for ODPS

JavaCustom license★ 142 stars⑂ 45 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗

aliyun/aliyun-odps-jdbc holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on Security (50/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Alibaba CloudOrganization · verified domain
1,981 followers703 public repossince Jul 2011

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavencom.aliyun.odps:odps-jdbc3.10.14-913 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
13.8/36Commit cadence — 20/52 weeks with commits
15.3/18Commit volume — 49 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year49
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year20
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 79 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 3 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~18.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count79
latest_release_tagv3.10.14
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release3
mean_days_between_releases18.6

Community & Adoption

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

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
34.9/60Stars — 142 stars
13.7/25Forks — 45 forks
6.8/15Watchers — 18 watchers
Inputs used
forks45
stars142
watchers18
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

80Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 46% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 14 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled14
top_contributor_share0.456
How it's scored
36.6/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance — 72/96 decided PRs merged
3.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/15 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs72
open_issues12
closed_issues81
prs_merged_7d5
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d5
prs_decided_30d17
issue_closed_ratio0.871
closed_unmerged_prs24
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d15
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
23.7/25Owner reach — 1,981 followers of aliyun
25/25Track record — 703 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,981
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginaliyun
public_repos703
account_age_days5,540

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on maven
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 3 days ago
20/20Version history — 91 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescom.aliyun.odps:odps-jdbc
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish3

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
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
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
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?

50Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the maven:com.aliyun.odps:odps-jdbc@3.10.14 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 packages. 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.

77Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.7/40Legible commit history — 67 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.67
agent_instruction_filesCLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,276
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — example/pom.xml, pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.1
toolchain_manifestsexample/pom.xml, pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 1/103 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes66,372
source_files_sampled103
oversized_source_files1
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
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

142GitHub stars
14contributors
49commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
79releases
2bus factor
12open 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 ★ / 45 ⇿
0Stars
45Forks
75Releases

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.

010203040504422015-122021-052026-09
Major 0Minor 9Patch 46

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.7 / 10
3.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-26 06:25 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests6 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 8/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained19 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 11
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenorg.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-javac2.3pom.xml
Mavenat.yawk.lz4:lz4-java1.11.2pom.xml
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-bom1.8.21pom.xml
Mavenio.netty:netty-bom4.1.137.Finalpom.xml
Mavencom.aliyun.odps:odps-sdk-core${sdk.version}pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.21.5pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.21.5pom.xml
Mavenat.yawk.lz4:lz4-java1.11.2pom.xml
Mavenorg.antlr:antlr4-runtime4.11.1pom.xml
Mavenorg.apache.arrow:arrow-memory-netty17.0.0pom.xml
Mavencom.google.protobuf:protobuf-java3.25.5pom.xml
All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 17 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenat.yawk.lz4:lz4-java1.11.2direct
Mavencom.aliyun.odps:odps-sdk-core0.58.1-publicdirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.21.5direct
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.21.5direct
Mavencom.google.protobuf:protobuf-java3.25.5direct
Mavenio.netty:netty-bom4.1.137direct
Mavenorg.antlr:antlr4-runtime4.11.1direct
Mavenorg.apache.arrow:arrow-memory-netty17.0.0direct
Mavenorg.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-javac2.3direct
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-bom1.8.21direct
Mavench.qos.logback:logback-classic1.3.16indirect
Mavench.qos.logback:logback-core1.3.16indirect
Mavencom.alibaba:druid1.0.14indirect
Mavencom.aliyun.odps:odps-jdbc3.10.10indirect
Mavencom.zaxxer:HikariCP2.4.2indirect
Mavenio.github.cdimascio:java-dotenv5.2.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-gpg-plugin3.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin2.10.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-shade-plugin3.5.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin2.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin3.2.5indirect
Mavenorg.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin0.8.11indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter5.10.0indirect
Mavenorg.mockito:mockito-junit-jupiter4.5.1indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-api2.0.17indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.plugins:nexus-staging-maven-plugin1.6.8indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing maven:com.aliyun.odps:odps-jdbc@3.10.14 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 — Maven.