# arangodb-managed/apis — health index 58/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository arangodb-managed/apis by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 58 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/arangodb-managed/apis
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/arangodb-managed/apis
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/arangodb-managed/apis/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/a/arangodb-managed/apis.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-18
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.13.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 77/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 26/100 | Critical |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 70/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Security | 16% | 44/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 56/100 | Moderate |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Public API definitions of ArangoGraph Insights Platform (formerly called Oasis). The Managed Cloud for ArangoDB |
| Homepage | https://cloud.arangodb.com |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 0 |
| Forks | 1 |
| Created | 2023-10-31 |
| Last push | 2026-07-15 |
| Latest release | v0.89.23 |
| Commits (last year) | 26 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | api, arangodb, arangodb-oasis, grpc, protobuf |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| go | github.com/arangodb-managed/apis | v0.89.23 | — |

## Vitality — 77/100 (Good)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 69/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 3 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 9.7 / 36 | 14/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | partial | 12.9 / 18 | 26 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 100 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 3 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~12.3 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 26/100 (Critical)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 5/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 0 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 1 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 5.3 / 15 | 10 watchers |

### Community health — 50/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | not met | 0 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 70/100 (Good)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 43/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 10.8 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 52% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 16 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 6 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 90/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 33 / 38.2 | 50/58 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 58/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 6.5 / 25 | 7 followers of arangodb-managed |
| Track record | partial | 21.3 / 25 | 18 public repos, account ~7 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on go |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 3 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 466 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 61/100 (Moderate)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 42/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | partial | 18 / 20 | 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://cloud.arangodb.com |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 5 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 44/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 44/100 (At risk)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | 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 |
| CI-Tests | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | 18 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 6 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 14 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 56/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 74/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | excluded | 0 / 8 | no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 96/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 50.9 / 55 | 22/297 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | api/v1/annotations.proto, audit/v1/audit.proto, auth/v1/auth.proto, backup/v1/backup.proto, billing/v1/billing.proto, common/v1/common.proto, credits/v1/credits.proto, crypto/v1/crypto.proto, currency/v1/currency.proto, dashboard/v1/dashboard.proto, data/v1/data.proto, deployment-profile/v1/deploymentprofile.proto, example/v1/example.proto, iam/v1/iam.proto, metrics/v1/metrics.proto, ml/v1/ml.proto, monitoring/v1/monitoring.proto, network/v1/network.proto, notebook/v1/notebook.proto, notification/v1/notification.proto, platform/v1/platform.proto, prepaid/v1/prepaid.proto, replication/v1/replication.proto, resourcemanager/v1/resourcemanager.proto, scim/v1/scim.proto, security/v1/security.proto, support/v1/support.proto, tools/v1/tools.proto, usage/v1/usage.proto, vendor-proto/google/api/annotations.proto, vendor-proto/google/api/http.proto, vendor-proto/google/api/httpbody.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/any.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/api.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/compiler/plugin.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/descriptor.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/duration.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/empty.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/field_mask.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/source_context.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/struct.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/timestamp.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/type.proto, vendor-proto/google/protobuf/wrappers.proto, vendor-proto/google/rpc/code.proto, vendor-proto/google/rpc/error_details.proto, vendor-proto/google/rpc/status.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example |

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt