Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 00:12 UTC

bufbuild / buf-action

Build, format, lint, and check for breaking changes in your Protobuf schemas, and automatically publish to the Buf Schema Registry.

TypeScriptApache-2.0★ 62 stars⑂ 12 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#buf #buf-schema-registry #grpc #protobuf #protocol-buffers

bufbuild/buf-action holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (75/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (45/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

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.

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

Ownership

BufOrganization · verified domain

786 followers77 public repossince Aug 2019

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?

75Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

64Moderate

How it's scored

36/36	Push recency — last push 1 days ago
5.5/36	Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
12.4/18	Commit volume — 23 commits in the last year
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

commits_last_year	23
human_commit_share	0.82
days_since_last_push	1
active_weeks_last_year	8

Release discipline

92Excellent

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 22 releases published
36/36	Release recency — latest release 50 days ago
19.8/27	Release cadence — a release every ~59.9 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data

Inputs used

releases_count	22
latest_release_tag	v1.5.0
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	50
mean_days_between_releases	59.9

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?

45Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

41Weak

How it's scored

29/60	Stars — 62 stars
8.7/25	Forks — 12 forks
3.3/15	Watchers — 5 watchers

Inputs used

forks	12
stars	62
watchers	5
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

50Moderate

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18	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	2
has_contributing	no
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

66Good · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

33At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
10.8/13.5	Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
10/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	8
top_contributor_share	0.86

Issue & PR responsiveness

77Good

How it's scored

37.3/42	Issue resolution — 89% of issues closed
14.3/30	PR acceptance — 125/263 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed

Inputs used

merged_prs	125
open_issues	3
closed_issues	24
prs_merged_7d	0
prs_decided_7d	0
prs_merged_30d	1
prs_decided_30d	1
issue_closed_ratio	0.889
closed_unmerged_prs	138
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

96Exceptional

How it's scored

30/30	Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20	Verified domain
20.8/25	Owner reach — 786 followers of bufbuild
25/25	Track record — 77 public repos, account ~7 yr old

Inputs used

followers	786
owner_type	Organization
is_verified	yes
owner_login	bufbuild
public_repos	77
account_age_days	2,582

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

56Moderate

How it's scored

24/24	CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
0/24	Tests present
16/16	Linter config — eslint.config.mjs
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
16/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8

Inputs used

has_ci	yes
has_tests	no
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	yes
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

65Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — https://buf.build
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 5 topics
0/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	buf, buf-schema-registry, grpc, protobuf, protocol-buffers
has_wiki	no
homepage	https://buf.build
docs_site	https://buf.build
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?

58Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

48Weak

How it's scored

7.5/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5	CI-Tests — 26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5	Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — 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
7.5/7.5	Maintained — 14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	15
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	3
scorecard_aggregate	4.8

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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	5
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	127
unassessed_packages	0
affected_by_severity	high 1, 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 127 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.

65Good · 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 — 82 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
llms_txt_url	—
legible_history_share	1
agent_instruction_files	—
agent_instruction_max_bytes	—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

58Moderate

How it's scored

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

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	no
lockfiles	package-lock.json
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	Makefile
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	yes
typecheck_configs	tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share	0
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	0.18

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55	Manageable file sizes — 0/8 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	TypeScript
largest_source_bytes	15,491
source_files_sampled	8
oversized_source_files	0

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
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	—
interfaces_expected_of	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

62GitHub stars

8contributors

23commits, last 12 months

1days since last push

22releases

1bus factor

3open issues

npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
Could not fetch npm package 'buf-action' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿

0Stars

12Forks

10Releases

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 5Patch 5

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.8 / 10

4.8aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 00:12 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
8	CI-Tests	26 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10	Code-Review	all changesets reviewed
10	Contributors	project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
0	Dangerous-Workflow	dangerous workflow patterns detected
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
10	Maintained	14 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
0	Pinned-Dependencies	dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
n/a	Signed-Releases	no releases found
0	Token-Permissions	detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5	Vulnerabilities	5 existing vulnerabilities detected

Direct dependencies 12

Registry	Package	Version constraint	Manifest
npm	@actions/core	`^3.0.1`	package.json
npm	@actions/exec	`^3.0.0`	package.json
npm	@actions/github	`^9.0.0`	package.json
npm	@actions/io	`^3.0.2`	package.json
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`^4.0.0`	package.json
npm	@buf/bufbuild_registry.bufbuild_es	`^2.2.3-20250116203702-1c024d64352b.1`	package.json
npm	@bufbuild/protobuf	`^2.2.5`	package.json
npm	@connectrpc/connect	`^2.0.1`	package.json
npm	@connectrpc/connect-web	`^2.0.1`	package.json
npm	@octokit/webhooks-types	`^7.6.1`	package.json
npm	parse-diff	`^0.12.0`	package.json
npm	semver	`^7.7.2`	package.json

All dependencies 127

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 115 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
npm	@actions/core	`3.0.1`	direct
npm	@actions/exec	`3.0.0`	direct
npm	@actions/github	`9.1.1`	direct
npm	@actions/io	`3.0.2`	direct
npm	@actions/tool-cache	`4.0.0`	direct
npm	@buf/bufbuild_registry.bufbuild_es	`2.2.3-20260713175918-10d915f5b43b.1`	direct
npm	@bufbuild/protobuf	`2.12.1`	direct
npm	@connectrpc/connect	`2.1.2`	direct
npm	@connectrpc/connect-web	`2.1.2`	direct
npm	@octokit/webhooks-types	`7.6.1`	direct
npm	parse-diff	`0.12.0`	direct
npm	semver	`7.8.5`	direct
npm	@actions/http-client	`3.0.2`	indirect
npm	@actions/http-client	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	@buf/bufbuild_bufplugin.bufbuild_es	`2.2.3-20250718181942-e35f9b667443.1`	indirect
npm	@buf/bufbuild_protovalidate.bufbuild_es	`2.2.3-20250717185734-6c6e0d3c608e.1`	indirect
npm	@bufbuild/license-header	`0.0.4`	indirect
npm	@eslint-community/eslint-utils	`4.9.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint-community/regexpp	`4.12.2`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-array	`0.23.5`	indirect
npm	@eslint/config-helpers	`0.6.0`	indirect
npm	@eslint/core	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint/js	`10.0.1`	indirect
npm	@eslint/object-schema	`3.0.5`	indirect
npm	@eslint/plugin-kit	`0.7.2`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/core	`0.19.2`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/node	`0.16.8`	indirect
npm	@humanfs/types	`0.15.0`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/module-importer	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	@humanwhocodes/retry	`0.4.3`	indirect
npm	@octokit/auth-token	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/core	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	@octokit/endpoint	`11.0.3`	indirect
npm	@octokit/graphql	`9.0.3`	indirect
npm	@octokit/openapi-types	`27.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/plugin-paginate-rest	`14.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/plugin-rest-endpoint-methods	`17.0.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/request	`10.0.11`	indirect
npm	@octokit/request-error	`7.1.0`	indirect
npm	@octokit/types	`16.0.0`	indirect
npm	@types/esrecurse	`4.3.1`	indirect
npm	@types/estree	`1.0.9`	indirect
npm	@types/json-schema	`7.0.15`	indirect
npm	@types/node	`26.1.2`	indirect
npm	@types/semver	`7.7.1`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/parser	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/project-service	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/scope-manager	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/tsconfig-utils	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/type-utils	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/types	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/typescript-estree	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/utils	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@typescript-eslint/visitor-keys	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	@vercel/ncc	`0.44.1`	indirect
npm	acorn	`8.17.0`	indirect
npm	acorn-jsx	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	ajv	`6.15.0`	indirect
npm	balanced-match	`4.0.4`	indirect
npm	before-after-hook	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	brace-expansion	`5.0.7`	indirect
npm	content-type	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	cross-spawn	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	debug	`4.4.3`	indirect
npm	deep-is	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	escape-string-regexp	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	eslint	`10.7.0`	indirect
npm	eslint-scope	`9.1.2`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`3.4.3`	indirect
npm	eslint-visitor-keys	`5.0.1`	indirect
npm	espree	`11.2.0`	indirect
npm	esquery	`1.7.0`	indirect
npm	esrecurse	`4.3.0`	indirect
npm	estraverse	`5.3.0`	indirect
npm	esutils	`2.0.3`	indirect
npm	fast-deep-equal	`3.1.3`	indirect
npm	fast-json-stable-stringify	`2.1.0`	indirect
npm	fast-levenshtein	`2.0.6`	indirect
npm	fdir	`6.5.0`	indirect
npm	file-entry-cache	`8.0.0`	indirect
npm	find-up	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	flat-cache	`4.0.1`	indirect
npm	flatted	`3.4.2`	indirect
npm	glob-parent	`6.0.2`	indirect
npm	globals	`17.9.0`	indirect
npm	ignore	`5.3.2`	indirect
npm	ignore	`7.0.6`	indirect
npm	imurmurhash	`0.1.4`	indirect
npm	is-extglob	`2.1.1`	indirect
npm	is-glob	`4.0.3`	indirect
npm	isexe	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	json-buffer	`3.0.1`	indirect
npm	json-schema-traverse	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	json-stable-stringify-without-jsonify	`1.0.1`	indirect
npm	json-with-bigint	`3.5.10`	indirect
npm	keyv	`4.5.4`	indirect
npm	levn	`0.4.1`	indirect
npm	locate-path	`6.0.0`	indirect
npm	minimatch	`10.2.5`	indirect
npm	ms	`2.1.3`	indirect
npm	natural-compare	`1.4.0`	indirect
npm	optionator	`0.9.4`	indirect
npm	p-limit	`3.1.0`	indirect
npm	p-locate	`5.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-exists	`4.0.0`	indirect
npm	path-key	`3.1.1`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`2.3.2`	indirect
npm	picomatch	`4.0.5`	indirect
npm	prelude-ls	`1.2.1`	indirect
npm	prettier	`3.9.6`	indirect
npm	punycode	`2.3.1`	indirect
npm	shebang-command	`2.0.0`	indirect
npm	shebang-regex	`3.0.0`	indirect
npm	tinyglobby	`0.2.17`	indirect
npm	ts-api-utils	`2.5.0`	indirect
npm	tunnel	`0.0.6`	indirect
npm	type-check	`0.4.0`	indirect
npm	typescript	`6.0.3`	indirect
npm	typescript-eslint	`8.64.0`	indirect
npm	undici	`6.27.0`	indirect
npm	undici-types	`8.3.0`	indirect
npm	universal-user-agent	`7.0.3`	indirect
npm	uri-js	`4.4.1`	indirect
npm	which	`2.0.2`	indirect
npm	word-wrap	`1.2.5`	indirect
npm	yocto-queue	`0.1.0`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 127 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
brace-expansion	`5.0.7`	indirect	high	2	`5.0.9`
undici	`6.27.0`	indirect	moderate	3	`8.9.0`

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