Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-12 03:55 UTC

appmetrica / appmetrica-sdk-android

AppMetrica SDK for Android

C++ · Java · KotlinMIT★ 63 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Jun 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationLibraryhow this is determined

appmetrica/appmetrica-sdk-android holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (44/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

69
overall / 100
Good

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.

69
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 62 is calibrated to 69 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AppMetricaOrganization · verified domain
43 followers23 public repossince May 2023

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?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 1 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 211 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year211
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 41 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 29 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count41
latest_release_tagv8.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release29
mean_days_between_releases13.5
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.1/60Stars — 63 stars
7/25Forks — 8 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars63
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.507
How it's scored
40.7/42Issue resolution — 97% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues1
closed_issues30
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.968
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
11.8/25Owner reach — 43 followers of appmetrica
16.6/25Track record — 23 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers43
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginappmetrica
public_repos23
account_age_days1,205

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://appmetrica.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsanalytics, android, appmetrica, crashes, library
has_wikino
homepagehttps://appmetrica.io
docs_sitehttps://appmetrica.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

44Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — no SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories2
affected_packages1
assessed_packages3
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 3 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.

59Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
6.4/40Legible commit history — 12 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.12
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — ndkcrashes/native/crashpad/crashpad/third_party/lss/lss/tests/Makefile, ndkcrashes/native/crashpad/crashpad/third_party/zlib/zlib/contrib/minizip/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesndkcrashes/native/crashpad/crashpad/third_party/lss/lss/tests/Makefile, ndkcrashes/native/crashpad/crashpad/third_party/zlib/zlib/contrib/minizip/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsad-revenue-admob-v23/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-applovin-v12-auto/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-applovin-v12/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-fyber-v3/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-ironsource-v7/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-ironsource-v9/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue-other/build.gradle.kts, ad-revenue/build.gradle.kts, analytics/build.gradle.kts, apphud-v2/build.gradle.kts, apphud-v3/build.gradle.kts, apphud/build.gradle.kts, appsetid/build.gradle.kts, billing-interface/build.gradle.kts, billing-v6/build.gradle.kts, billing-v8/build.gradle.kts, billing/build.gradle.kts, build-logic/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, common-logger/build.gradle.kts, core-api/build.gradle.kts, core-utils/build.gradle.kts, gpllibrary/build.gradle.kts, id-sync/build.gradle.kts, identifiers/build.gradle.kts, location-api/build.gradle.kts, location/build.gradle.kts, logger/build.gradle.kts, modules-api/build.gradle.kts, ndkcrashes-api/build.gradle.kts, ndkcrashes/build.gradle.kts, ndkcrashes/native/crashpad/crashpad/doc/appengine/go.mod, network-api/build.gradle.kts, network-legacy/build.gradle.kts, network-okhttp/build.gradle.kts, network-tasks/build.gradle.kts, network/build.gradle.kts, product-flow/build.gradle.kts, proto/build.gradle.kts, remote-permissions/build.gradle.kts, reporter-extension/build.gradle.kts, screenshot/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
54.9/55Manageable file sizes — 4/4,169 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes79,789
source_files_sampled4,169
oversized_source_files4
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — ad-revenue-applovin-v12-auto/protobuf/client/adRevenueApplovinConfigProtobuf.proto, ad-revenue-other/protobuf/client/adRevenueOtherConfigProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/adRevenue.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/crashAndroid.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/ecommerce.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/eventProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/eventStart.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/externalAttribution.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/referrer.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/revenue.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/userprofile.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/appPermissionsStateProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/clidsInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/dbProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/eventExtrasProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/eventhashes.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/legacyStartupStateProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/preloadInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/referrerInfoClient.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/satelliteClidsInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/sessionExtrasProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/startupStateProtobuf.proto, apphud/protobuf/client/remoteApphudConfigProtobuf.proto, billing/protobuf/backend/revenue.proto, billing/protobuf/client/autoInappCollectingInfoProto.proto, billing/protobuf/client/remoteBillingConfigProtobuf.proto, product-flow/protobuf/backend/productFlowEvent.proto, remote-permissions/protobuf/client/remotePermissionsProtobuf.proto, screenshot/protobuf/client/remoteScreenshotConfigProtobuf.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesad-revenue-applovin-v12-auto/protobuf/client/adRevenueApplovinConfigProtobuf.proto, ad-revenue-other/protobuf/client/adRevenueOtherConfigProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/adRevenue.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/crashAndroid.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/ecommerce.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/eventProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/eventStart.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/externalAttribution.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/referrer.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/revenue.proto, analytics/protobuf/backend/userprofile.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/appPermissionsStateProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/clidsInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/dbProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/eventExtrasProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/eventhashes.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/legacyStartupStateProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/preloadInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/referrerInfoClient.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/satelliteClidsInfoProto.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/sessionExtrasProtobuf.proto, analytics/protobuf/client/startupStateProtobuf.proto, apphud/protobuf/client/remoteApphudConfigProtobuf.proto, billing/protobuf/backend/revenue.proto, billing/protobuf/client/autoInappCollectingInfoProto.proto, billing/protobuf/client/remoteBillingConfigProtobuf.proto, product-flow/protobuf/backend/productFlowEvent.proto, remote-permissions/protobuf/client/remotePermissionsProtobuf.proto, screenshot/protobuf/client/remoteScreenshotConfigProtobuf.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

63GitHub stars
10contributors
211commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
41releases
1bus factor
1open 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 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
22Releases

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.

02468822023-092024-082025-08
Major 2Minor 15Patch 2

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-12 03:55 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 3

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 3 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/golang/protobuf1.5.2indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/appengine/v22.0.5indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.30.0indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
google.golang.org/protobuf1.30.0indirecthigh21.33.0

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.

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.