Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-17 15:25 UTC

apache / arrow

Apache Arrow is the universal columnar format and multi-language toolbox for fast data interchange and in-memory analytics

C++Apache-2.0★ 17,127 stars⑂ 4,303 forkssince Feb 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

apache/arrow holds a health index of 100 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (75/100). It was last updated today. 9 contributors account for most of its recent work.

100
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

100
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 92 is calibrated to 100 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Apache Software FoundationOrganization · verified domain
24,262 followers3,172 public repossince Jan 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIpyarrow25.0.1-6438 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

99Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,347 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,347
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 39 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 38 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.6 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count39
latest_release_tagapache-arrow-25.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release38
mean_days_between_releases22.6

Community & Adoption

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

96Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 17,127 stars
25/25Forks — 4,303 forks
14.1/15Watchers — 348 watchers
Inputs used
forks4,303
stars17,127
watchers348
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

91Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
54/54Bus factor — 9 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 13% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 110 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor9
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.13
How it's scored
38.8/42Issue resolution — 92% of issues closed
10.8/30PR acceptance — 7,814/21,608 decided PRs merged
2.6/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs7,814
open_issues2,160
closed_issues26,400
prs_merged_7d26
prs_decided_7d42
prs_merged_30d38
prs_decided_30d56
issue_closed_ratio0.924
closed_unmerged_prs13,794
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 24,262 followers of apache
25/25Track record — 3,172 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers24,262
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginapache
public_repos3,172
account_age_days6,451

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 38 days ago
20/20Version history — 64 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagespyarrow
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish38

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

96Exceptional · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

100Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 30 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .rubocop.yml, python/setup.cfg ([flake8])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://arrow.apache.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsarrow, parquet
has_wikino
homepagehttps://arrow.apache.org/
docs_sitehttps://arrow.apache.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

75Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 110 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate6.9

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
advisories50
affected_packages5
assessed_packages27
unassessed_packages52
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 2, moderate 2
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 27 resolved dependencies against OSV. 52 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

89Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 98 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_files.github/copilot-instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes915
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — docs/Makefile, r/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .rubocop.yml, python/setup.cfg ([flake8])
11/11Static type checking — python/pyarrow/py.typed
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 5 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesdocs/Makefile, r/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configspython/pyarrow/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.05
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
53/55Manageable file sizes — 128/3,555 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes476,471
source_files_sampled3,555
oversized_source_files128
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — cpp/examples/arrow/helloworld.proto, cpp/proto/substrait/extension_rels.proto, cpp/src/arrow/flight/perf.proto, format/Flight.proto, format/FlightSql.proto
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — example, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filescpp/examples/arrow/helloworld.proto, cpp/proto/substrait/extension_rels.proto, cpp/src/arrow/flight/perf.proto, format/Flight.proto, format/FlightSql.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

17,127GitHub stars
99contributors
1,347commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
39releases
9bus factor
2,160open issues
PyPI, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 28 authors (cap 12)
  • pypi download statistics for 'pyarrow' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 4,303 ⇿
0Stars
4,303Forks
35Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

3,2003,4003,6003,8004,0004,2004,4004,303102024-082025-092026-09
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.9 / 10
6.9aggregate

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 · 2026-09-17 15:24 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 29/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 110 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 15 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 3
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemstest-unit—c_glib/Gemfile
RubyGemsgobject-introspection>= 4.2.3c_glib/Gemfile
RubyGemspkg-config—ruby/Gemfile
All dependencies 79

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 76 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsgobject-introspection—direct
RubyGemspkg-config—direct
RubyGemstest-unit—direct
Gogithub.com/andybalholm/brotli1.0.1indirect
Gogithub.com/apache/arrow/go/arrow0.0.0-20210520144409-d07f30ada677indirect
Gogithub.com/apache/thrift/lib/go/thrift0.0.0-20210120171102-e27e82c46ba4indirect
Gogithub.com/davecgh/go-spew1.1.1indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.2indirect
Gogithub.com/golang/snappy0.0.3indirect
Gogithub.com/google/flatbuffers2.0.0+incompatibleindirect
Gogithub.com/google/go-cmp0.5.6indirect
Gogithub.com/johncgriffin/overflow0.0.0-20170615021017-4d914c927216indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/asmfmt1.2.3indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compress1.12.2indirect
Gogithub.com/klauspost/compress1.13.1indirect
Gogithub.com/minio/asm2plan9s0.0.0-20200509001527-cdd76441f9d8indirect
Gogithub.com/minio/c2goasm0.0.0-20190812172519-36a3d3bbc4f3indirect
Gogithub.com/pierrec/lz4/v44.1.8indirect
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testify1.7.0indirect
Gogithub.com/zeebo/xxh30.10.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/exp0.0.0-20210220032938-85be41e4509findirect
Gogolang.org/x/net0.0.0-20210614182718-04defd469f4eindirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210309074719-68d13333faf2indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210630005230-0f9fa26af87cindirect
Gogolang.org/x/xerrors0.0.0-20200804184101-5ec99f83aff1indirect
Gogonum.org/v1/gonum0.8.2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto0.0.0-20210630183607-d20f26d13c79indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.39.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.27.1indirect
PyPIbreathe—indirect
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIcffi—indirect
PyPIclick—indirect
PyPIcython—indirect
PyPIgitpython—indirect
PyPIhypothesis—indirect
PyPIipython—indirect
PyPIjinja2—indirect
PyPIjpype1—indirect
PyPIlibcst—indirect
PyPIlinuxdoc—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPInumpydoc—indirect
PyPInumpydoc1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging—indirect
PyPIpandas—indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme—indirect
PyPIpygit2—indirect
PyPIpygithub—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-xdist—indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv—indirect
PyPIpytz—indirect
PyPIrequests—indirect
PyPIresponses—indirect
PyPIruamel-yaml—indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core—indirect
PyPIsemver—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-scm—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-autobuild—indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton—indirect
PyPIsphinx-design—indirect
PyPIsphinx-lint—indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-mermaid—indirect
PyPItzdata—indirect
PyPIwheel—indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark-driver—indirect
RubyGemsbundler—indirect
RubyGemsfaker—indirect
RubyGemsfiddle—indirect
RubyGemsrake—indirect
RubyGemsred-arrow—indirect
RubyGemsred-arrow-flight—indirect
RubyGemsredcarpet—indirect
RubyGemsstringio—indirect
RubyGemswebrick—indirect
RubyGemsyard—indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 27 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 52 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
google.golang.org/grpc1.39.0indirectcritical121.85.0-dev.0.20260825072537-93e31b48545e
golang.org/x/net0.0.0-20210614182718-04defd469f4eindirecthigh3012.0.2
google.golang.org/protobuf1.27.1indirecthigh21.33.0
golang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210309074719-68d13333faf2indirectmoderate31.18.2
golang.org/x/sys0.0.0-20210630005230-0f9fa26af87cindirectmoderate31.18.2

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 — PyPI.