Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 19:57 UTC

aspect-archives / toolchains_protoc

Pre-built protoc binary toolchain for Bazel, fetched from official protobuf releases

StarlarkApache-2.0★ 57 stars⑂ 21 forkssince Mar 2024archivedView on GitHub ↗

aspect-archives/toolchains_protoc holds a health index of 19 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (41/100). The repository is archived, so no further maintenance is expected.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 52 is calibrated to 53 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Aspect BuildOrganization

0 followers7 public repossince May 2026

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?

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

23At Risk

Abandonment alert

Work has arrived and nobody has attended to it

archived on GitHub by its maintainersOverall rating: Critical ceiling

Silence alone is never the finding — a small, finished library may need no commits for years. This alert requires both: no human commit for a long time, and obligations the project is visibly not discharging. Automated commits do not count as maintenance.

How abandonment is assessed

How it's scored

9.9/36	Push recency — last push 104 days ago
4.2/36	Commit cadence — 6/52 weeks with commits
8.6/18	Commit volume — 8 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project is archived

Inputs used

commits_last_year	8
human_commit_share	0.74
days_since_last_push	104
active_weeks_last_year	6

Release discipline

80Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 22 releases published
16.2/36	Release recency — latest release 233 days ago
27/27	Release cadence — a release every ~44.9 days
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.

Inputs used

releases_count	22
latest_release_tag	v0.6.1
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	233
mean_days_between_releases	44.9

Community & Adoption

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

56Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak

How it's scored

28.4/60	Stars — 57 stars
10.8/25	Forks — 21 forks
3.9/15	Watchers — 6 watchers

Inputs used

forks	21
stars	57
watchers	6
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	0
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

41Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

27At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 82% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	10
top_contributor_share	0.815

Issue & PR responsiveness

62Moderate

How it's scored

22.1/42	Issue resolution — 53% of issues closed
24.4/30	PR acceptance — 70/86 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 8/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

merged_prs	70
open_issues	9
closed_issues	10
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	0
prs_decided_30d	0
issue_closed_ratio	0.526
closed_unmerged_prs	16
first_time_authors_30d	0
first_time_prs_merged_30d	0
first_time_prs_decided_30d	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

37Weak

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20	Verified domain
0/25	Owner reach — 0 followers of aspect-archives
7.1/25	Track record — 7 public repos, account ~0 yr old

Inputs used

followers	0
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	no
owner_login	aspect-archives
public_repos	7
account_age_days	104

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config
9.6/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
10/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 13 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	yes

Documentation

40Weak

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
0/15	Documentation / homepage site
10/10	Repository description
0/10	Topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	—
has_wiki	no
homepage	—
docs_site	—
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
1.2/2.5	CI-Tests — 13 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5	Code-Review — Found 8/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0/2.5	Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — project is archived
0/5	Packaging — no data
0.5/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
7.5/7.5	Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 16 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	16
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	2
scorecard_aggregate	4.4

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	18
affected_packages	5
assessed_packages	60
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 4, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages	0

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 60 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40	Legible commit history — 64 of 74 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	0.865
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

55Moderate

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
11/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — examples/tsconfig.json
10/10	Reproducible environment — devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8	Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	pnpm-lock.yaml
has_dockerfile	yes
typed_language	no
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	yes
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	examples/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0

Code legibility for models

82Excellent

How it's scored

27/45	Type-checkable code — Starlark with type-check config (examples/tsconfig.json)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/9 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Starlark
largest_source_bytes	2,315
source_files_sampled	9
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

40/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — e2e/smoke/foo.proto, examples/proto/greeter.proto
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — examples

Inputs used

example_dirs	examples
has_mcp_signal	no
api_schema_files	e2e/smoke/foo.proto, examples/proto/greeter.proto
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

57GitHub stars

10contributors

8commits, last 12 months

104days since last push

22releases

1bus factor

9open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 21 ⇿

0Stars

21Forks

14Releases

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.

Major 0Minor 3Patch 11

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10

4.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 19:56 UTC

10	Binary-Artifacts	no binaries found in the repo
n/a	Branch-Protection	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
5	CI-Tests	13 out of 22 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 5
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5	Code-Review	Found 8/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0	Contributors	project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10	Dangerous-Workflow	no dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	project is archived
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
1	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
10	Signed-Releases	5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0	Vulnerabilities	16 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 60

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 60 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@bufbuild/protobuf	`2.2.4`	indirect
npm	@bufbuild/protoc-gen-es	`2.2.4`	indirect
npm	@bufbuild/protoplugin	`2.2.4`	indirect
npm	@connectrpc/connect	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	@connectrpc/connect-fastify	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	@connectrpc/connect-node	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	@fastify/ajv-compiler	`4.0.2`	indirect
npm	@fastify/error	`4.1.0`	indirect
npm	@fastify/fast-json-stringify-compiler	`5.0.2`	indirect
npm	@fastify/forwarded	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	@fastify/merge-json-schemas	`0.2.1`	indirect
npm	@fastify/proxy-addr	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`22.13.10`	indirect
npm	@typescript/vfs	`1.6.1`	indirect
npm	abstract-logging	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	ajv	`8.17.1`	indirect
npm	ajv-formats	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	atomic-sleep	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	avvio	`9.1.0`	indirect
npm	cookie	`1.0.2`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.0`	indirect
npm	dequal	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-decode-uri-component	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	fast-deep-equal	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	fast-json-stringify	`6.0.1`	indirect
npm	fast-querystring	`1.1.2`	indirect
npm	fast-redact	`3.5.0`	indirect
npm	fast-uri	`3.0.6`	indirect
npm	fastify	`5.2.1`	indirect
npm	fastq	`1.19.1`	indirect
npm	find-my-way	`9.2.0`	indirect
npm	ipaddr.js	`2.2.0`	indirect
npm	json-schema-ref-resolver	`2.0.1`	indirect
npm	json-schema-traverse	`1.0.0`	indirect
npm	light-my-request	`6.6.0`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	on-exit-leak-free	`2.1.2`	indirect
npm	pino	`9.6.0`	indirect
npm	pino-abstract-transport	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	pino-std-serializers	`7.0.0`	indirect
npm	process-warning	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	quick-format-unescaped	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	real-require	`0.2.0`	indirect
npm	require-from-string	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	ret	`0.5.0`	indirect
npm	reusify	`1.1.0`	indirect
npm	rfdc	`1.4.1`	indirect
npm	safe-regex2	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	safe-stable-stringify	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	secure-json-parse	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	semver	`7.7.1`	indirect
npm	set-cookie-parser	`2.7.1`	indirect
npm	sonic-boom	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	split2	`4.2.0`	indirect
npm	thread-stream	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	toad-cache	`3.7.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.4.5`	indirect
npm	typescript	`5.7.2`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`6.20.0`	indirect
PyPI	protobuf	`5.28.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 60 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
fast-uri	`3.0.6`	indirect	high	7	`4.1.3`
fastify	`5.2.1`	indirect	high	5	`5.12.1`
find-my-way	`9.2.0`	indirect	high	1	`9.7.0`
protobuf	`5.28.0`	indirect	high	4	`6.33.5`
ajv	`8.17.1`	indirect	moderate	1	`8.18.0`

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.

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.

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Metrics by category

Key facts

Data collection warnings

More detail

Feedback

Related records