Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-19 11:56 UTC

catchorg / Catch2

A modern, C++-native, test framework for unit-tests, TDD and BDD - using C++14, C++17 and later (C++11 support is in v2.x branch, and C++03 on the Catch1.x branch)

C++BSL-1.0★ 21,487 stars⑂ 3,505 forkssince Nov 2010View on GitHub ↗

catchorg/Catch2 holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (96/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated 4 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

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

Ownership

Catch OrgOrganization
122 followers3 public repossince Nov 2017

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 4 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 163 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year163
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push4
active_weeks_last_year38

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 25 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~40.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.16.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release25
mean_days_between_releases40.5

Community & Adoption

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

96Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 21,487 stars
25/25Forks — 3,505 forks
14.8/15Watchers — 460 watchers
Inputs used
forks3,505
stars21,487
watchers460
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSL-1.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges8
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesci.appveyor.com, codecov.io, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

55Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.519
How it's scored
33.9/42Issue resolution — 81% of issues closed
18.7/30PR acceptance — 699/1,122 decided PRs merged
7.8/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs699
open_issues385
closed_issues1,621
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d3
prs_merged_30d3
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio0.808
closed_unmerged_prs423
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
15/25Owner reach — 122 followers of catchorg
16.4/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers122
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincatchorg
public_repos3
account_age_days3,242

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

72Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
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_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://discord.gg/4CWS9zD
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicstesting, test-framework, tdd, bdd, no-dependencies, framework, cpp14, cpp
has_wikino
homepagehttps://discord.gg/4CWS9zD
docs_sitehttps://discord.gg/4CWS9zD
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles — no dependency manifests — not applicable
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifests—
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

53Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
26.1/40Legible commit history — 49 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.49
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C++ (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes — 2/450 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes556,708
source_files_sampled450
oversized_source_files2
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
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

21,487GitHub stars
100contributors
163commits, last 12 months
4days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
385open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (exit code 0; Skipping github.com/catchorg/Catch2: run: repo unreachable: Get "https://api.github.com/repos/catchorg/Catch2": internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: internal error: innerTransport.RoundTrip: error in HTTP: dial tcp 140.82.121.6:443: i/o timeout); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 3,505 ⇿
0Stars
3,505Forks
25Releases

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.

2,4002,6002,8003,0003,2003,4003,6003,505552023-012024-112026-09
Major 0Minor 13Patch 12

Each point covers 4 days.

All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.