Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-07 03:21 UTC

bitwarden / android

Bitwarden mobile apps (Password Manager and Authenticator) for Android.

KotlinGPL-3.0★ 9,448 stars⑂ 1,064 forkssince Apr 2016View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

bitwarden/android holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (66/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

96
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.

96
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 84 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

BitwardenOrganization · verified domain
11,118 followers68 public repossince Nov 2015

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 — 1,044 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,044
human_commit_share0.73
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~6.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2026.9.1-bwa
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases6.2

Community & Adoption

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

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 9,448 stars
25/25Forks — 1,064 forks
12/15Watchers — 143 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,064
stars9,448
watchers143
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
12.9/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 43% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 78 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled78
top_contributor_share0.427
How it's scored
39.1/42Issue resolution — 93% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 4,538/4,975 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_prs4,538
open_issues157
closed_issues2,097
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d13
prs_merged_30d33
prs_decided_30d35
issue_closed_ratio0.93
closed_unmerged_prs437
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 11,118 followers of bitwarden
25/25Track record — 68 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers11,118
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginbitwarden
public_repos68
account_age_days3,970

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 20 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-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_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://bitwarden.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 5 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsandroid, bitwarden, compose, jetpack, kotlin
has_wikino
homepagehttps://bitwarden.com
docs_sitehttps://bitwarden.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0.8/7.5Branch-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 8 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 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
3.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. 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
advisories5
affected_packages4
assessed_packages109
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 2, moderate 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 109 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

83Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — .claude/CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 56 of 73 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.767
agent_instruction_files.claude/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,819
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — annotation/build.gradle.kts, app/build.gradle.kts, authenticator/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — .claude/mcp/android-device-server/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs.claude/mcp/android-device-server/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsannotation/build.gradle.kts, app/build.gradle.kts, authenticator/build.gradle.kts, authenticatorbridge/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, core/build.gradle.kts, cxf/build.gradle.kts, data/build.gradle.kts, network/build.gradle.kts, testharness/build.gradle.kts, ui/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 40/2,603 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes322,846
source_files_sampled2,603
oversized_source_files40
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — authenticator/src/main/proto/google_authenticator.proto
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_filesauthenticator/src/main/proto/google_authenticator.proto
interfaces_expected_of—

Key facts

9,448GitHub stars
78contributors
1,044commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
157open issues
Maven, RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,064 ⇿
0Stars
1,064Forks
100Releases

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.

02004006008001,0001,2001,064252018-062022-082026-10
Major 0Minor 12Patch 20

Each point covers 8 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-07 03:21 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
1Branch-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 8 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 19 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane2.238.0Gemfile
RubyGemstime0.4.2Gemfile
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2Gemfile
RubyGemslogger1.7.0Gemfile
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0Gemfile
RubyGemscsv3.3.6Gemfile
RubyGemsnkf0.2.0Gemfile
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3Gemfile
All dependencies 110

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 8 direct and 102 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2direct
RubyGemscsv3.3.6direct
RubyGemsfastlane2.238.0direct
RubyGemslogger1.7.0direct
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0direct
RubyGemsnkf0.2.0direct
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3direct
RubyGemstime0.4.2direct
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk1.27.1indirect
npm@types/node20.19.35indirect
npmfast-xml-parser^4.5.0indirect
npmtypescript5.8.3indirect
npmvitest3.1.1indirect
npmzod3.24.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1283.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.254.1indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.130.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.229.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemsdate3.5.1indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20260902indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb6.0.7indirect
RubyGemsexcon0.112.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-plugin-firebase_app_distribution1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.108.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-firebaseappdistribution_v10.22.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-firebaseappdistribution_v1alpha0.30.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.67.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.2.2indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.4indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.0.8indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.2indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.1indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrbs4.2.0indirect
RubyGemsrdoc8.0.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.2.0indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip2.4.1indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.1.5indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.0indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier2.0.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstsort0.2.0indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 4

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 109 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 4 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
vitest3.1.1indirectcritical25.0.0-rc.2
@modelcontextprotocol/sdk1.27.1indirecthigh12.2.0
rubyzip2.4.1indirecthigh13.4.0
excon0.112.0indirectmoderate11.5.0

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.