Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-30 23:30 UTC

codehaus-plexus / plexus-classworlds

Plexus Classworlds is a framework for container developers who require complex manipulation of Java's ClassLoaders.

JavaCustom license★ 64 stars⑂ 33 forkssince Jan 2015View on GitHub ↗

codehaus-plexus/plexus-classworlds holds a health index of 69 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (73/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 51 days ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

69
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.

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

Ownership

PlexusOrganization
17 followers27 public repossince Jan 2015

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavenorg.codehaus.plexus:plexus-classworlds2.12.0-3672 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 51 days ago
8.3/36Commit cadence — 12/52 weeks with commits
12.9/18Commit volume — 26 commits in the last year
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
commits_last_year26
human_commit_share0.5
days_since_last_push51
active_weeks_last_year12
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 6 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 72 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~256.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count6
latest_release_tagplexus-classworlds-2.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release72
mean_days_between_releases256.8
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
29.2/60Stars — 64 stars
12.5/25Forks — 33 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks33
stars64
watchers9
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
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?

73Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 21 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 25 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled21
top_contributor_share0.281
How it's scored
31.5/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
19.6/30PR acceptance — 87/133 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
1.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
merged_prs87
open_issues3
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.75
closed_unmerged_prs46
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): newcomer_pr_acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
9/25Owner reach — 17 followers of codehaus-plexus
22.5/25Track record — 27 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers17
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_logincodehaus-plexus
public_repos27
account_age_days4,214

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on maven
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 72 days ago
20/20Version history — 36 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesorg.codehaus.plexus:plexus-classworlds
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish72

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://codehaus-plexus.github.io/plexus-classworlds/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsmaven
has_wikino
homepagehttps://codehaus-plexus.github.io/plexus-classworlds/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

62Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 25 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
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
6/7.5Maintained — 10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, signed_releases. 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages6
affected_by_severitynone
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 3 resolved dependencies against OSV. 6 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
10.7/40Legible commit history — 10 of 50 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.2
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 50 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.02
toolchain_manifestspom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.5
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/60 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes15,437
source_files_sampled60
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

64GitHub stars
21contributors
26commits, last 12 months
51days since last push
6releases
3bus factor
3open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 33 ⇿
0Stars
33Forks
5Releases

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.

01325383322015-092021-012026-05
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.2 / 10
5.2aggregate

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 · 2026-07-30 23:29 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
8CI-Tests15 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1Code-ReviewFound 3/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 1
10Contributorsproject has 25 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
8Maintained10 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 8
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 9 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenorg.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin5.1.9indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-dependency-plugin1.10.14indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-project-info-reports-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-scm-publish-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin0.8.15indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-apiindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 3 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 6 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsMaven.