Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-15 20:23 UTC

apache / polaris

Apache Polaris, the interoperable, open source catalog for Apache Iceberg

JavaApache-2.0★ 2,011 stars⑂ 485 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗
#iceberg#apache#polaris#catalog#lakehouse#metadata#opencatalog

apache/polaris holds a health index of 98 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (80/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

98
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.

98
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 86 is calibrated to 98 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

The Apache Software FoundationOrganization
23,485 followers3,144 public repossince Jan 2009

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?

96Exceptional · 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 — 2,079 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year2,079
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

91Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 10 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 6 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~55.4 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count10
latest_release_tagapache-polaris-1.6.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release6
mean_days_between_releases55.4

Community & Adoption

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

89Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

87Excellent
How it's scored
53.6/60Stars — 2,011 stars
22.4/25Forks — 485 forks
10.8/15Watchers — 87 watchers
Inputs used
forks485
stars2,011
watchers87
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_badges—
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

83Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

75Good
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 27 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.311

Issue & PR responsiveness

76Good
How it's scored
26.1/42Issue resolution — 62% of issues closed
25.1/30PR acceptance — 3,541/4,224 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_prs3,541
open_issues261
closed_issues428
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.621
closed_unmerged_prs683
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

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach — 23,485 followers of apache
25/25Track record — 3,144 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers23,485
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginapache
public_repos3,144
account_age_days6,388
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

82Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

94Exceptional
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 13 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.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_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

65Good
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://polaris.apache.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsiceberg, apache, polaris, catalog, lakehouse, metadata, opencatalog
has_wikino
homepagehttps://polaris.apache.org/
docs_sitehttps://polaris.apache.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

80Excellent · 16% of overall

Security posture

80Excellent
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-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
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 27 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
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_aggregate8

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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

75Good
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/generated-files.instructions.md, .github/instructions/polaris-review-omissions.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
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.github/copilot-instructions.md, .github/instructions/generated-files.instructions.md, .github/instructions/polaris-review-omissions.instructions.md, AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes12,198
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

93Exceptional
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, uv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 14/1,588 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes140,423
source_files_sampled1,588
oversized_source_files14

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsnotebooks
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto). Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

2,011GitHub stars
100contributors
2,079commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
10releases
3bus factor
261open issues
Go, Maven, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch go package 'github.com/apache/polaris' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 8.0 / 10
8.0aggregate

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 · 2026-07-15 20:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-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
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 27 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases2 out of the last 2 releases have a total of 2 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 68

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 68 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/google/docsyv0.14.3indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIapache-polaris1.6.0indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIboto31.43.1indirect
PyPIbotocore1.43.1indirect
PyPIcachetools6.2.4indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcfgv3.5.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage7.13.1indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIflake87.3.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2026.1.0indirect
PyPIidentify2.6.15indirect
PyPIidna3.15indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.3.0indirect
PyPIipykernel7.3.0indirect
PyPIjmespath1.0.1indirect
PyPIjupyterlab4.6.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImmh35.2.0indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPInodeenv1.10.0indirect
PyPIopenapi-generator-cli7.12.0indirect
PyPIpackaging25.0indirect
PyPIpathspec1.0.3indirect
PyPIpip-licenses-cli4.1.0indirect
PyPIpip-licenses-lib1.2.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.5.1indirect
PyPIpluggy1.6.0indirect
PyPIpre-commit4.6.0indirect
PyPIprettytable3.17.0indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.14.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.13.0indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.46.0indirect
PyPIpyflakes3.4.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpyiceberg0.11.1indirect
PyPIpyparsing3.3.1indirect
PyPIpyroaring1.1.0indirect
PyPIpytest9.0.3indirect
PyPIpytest-cov7.0.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIrequests2.33.0indirect
PyPIrich14.2.0indirect
PyPIs3transfer0.17.0indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIstrictyaml1.7.3indirect
PyPItenacity9.1.2indirect
PyPItomli2.4.0indirect
PyPItypes-python-dateutil2.9.0.20251115indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIuv—indirect
PyPIvirtualenv20.36.1indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.14indirect
PyPIzstandard0.25.0indirect
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 apache/polaris. Read them side by side →

89lakekeeper/lakekeeperLakekeeper is an Apache-Licensed, secure, fast and easy to use Apache Iceberg REST Catalog written in Rust.Excellent65ThiagoLange/iceberg-ai-deltalakehouseAI-Lake Format: self-contained Parquet + HNSW index — unifying tabular data, embeddings, and vector search in a single Iceberg-compatible fileGood96StarRocks/starrocksThe world's fastest open query engine for sub-second analytics both on and off the data lakehouse. With the flexibility to support nearly any scenario, StarRocks provides best-in-class performance for multi-dimensional analytics, real-time analytics, and ad-hoc queries. A Linux Foundation project.Exceptional98apache/iceberg-pythonPyIcebergExceptional62alexmerced-oss/loroLoro enterprise agent harness for coding, governed data, and productivity workModerate60Query-farm/vgi-lint-checkLint the documentation & metadata quality of VGI (Vector Gateway Interface) data workers — descriptions, column comments, tags, and example queries — with a quality score, per-version baselines, and agent-friendly output.Moderate

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.