Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 05:13 UTC

clojure / tools.deps

Deps as data and classpath generation

ClojureEPL-1.0★ 55 stars⑂ 12 forkssince Dec 2022forkView on GitHub ↗

clojure/tools.deps holds a health index of 50 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (77/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (17/100). It was last updated 17 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

50
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

50
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 50 is calibrated to 50 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ClojureOrganization
597 followers113 public repossince Jun 2010

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.deps0.31.1646-7017 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

77Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 17 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume107 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year107
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push17
active_weeks_last_year17
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recencylatest release 17 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~22.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.31.1646
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release17
mean_days_between_releases22.4
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall
How it's scored
28.1/60Stars55 stars
8.7/25Forks12 forks
2.7/15Watchers4 watchers
Inputs used
forks12
stars55
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (EPL-1.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.856
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptanceno decided pull requests or no data
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20/25Owner reach597 followers of clojure
25/25Track record113 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers597
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginclojure
public_repos113
account_age_days5,926

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on maven
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 17 days ago
20/20Version history70 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesorg.clojure:tools.deps
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish17

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

10Critical
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate4.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages54
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the maven:org.clojure:tools.deps@0.31.1646 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 54 packages. 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.

17Critical · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history0 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrappom.xml, test-data/pom-extra-src/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestspom.xml, test-data/pom-extra-src/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeClojure without a type-check config
0/55Manageable file sizesno source files detected
Inputs used
primary_languageClojure
largest_source_bytes
source_files_sampled0
oversized_source_files0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Manageable file sizes. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

55GitHub stars
11contributors
107commits, last 12 months
17days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 12 ⇿
0Stars
12Forks
56Releases

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.

0246810121212022-122024-072026-02
Major 0Minor 0Patch 56

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.2 / 10
4.2aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 05:13 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained16 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 10
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenorg.clojure:clojure${clojure.version}pom.xml
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.deps.edn0.9.48pom.xml
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima:context${mimaVersion}pom.xml
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.runtime:standalone-static${mimaVersion}pom.xml
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.extensions:mhc4${mimaVersion}pom.xml
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.extensions:mmr${mimaVersion}pom.xml
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.deps.maven-s3-transporter0.1.4pom.xml
Mavenorg.clojure:data.xml0.2.0-alpha11pom.xml
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.gitlibs2.6.217pom.xml
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.cli1.4.256pom.xml
All dependencies 14

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 10 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.extensions:mhc42.4.48direct
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.extensions:mmr2.4.48direct
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima.runtime:standalone-static2.4.48direct
Maveneu.maveniverse.maven.mima:context2.4.48direct
Mavenorg.clojure:clojure1.12.6direct
Mavenorg.clojure:data.xml0.2.0-alpha11direct
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.cli1.4.256direct
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.deps.edn0.9.48direct
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.deps.maven-s3-transporter0.1.4direct
Mavenorg.clojure:tools.gitlibs2.6.217direct
Mavencom.theoryinpractise:clojure-maven-plugin1.7.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin3.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin1.7indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-nop1.7.36indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing maven:org.clojure:tools.deps@0.31.1646 pulls in 54 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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 statisticsMaven.