Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-14 23:47 UTC

coze-dev / coze-java

The Java SDK for the Coze API

JavaMIT★ 214 stars⑂ 98 forkssince Dec 2024View on GitHub ↗

coze-dev/coze-java holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (66/100) and lowest on Security (35/100). It was last updated 112 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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

coze-devOrganization
2,843 followers22 public repossince Jan 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavencom.coze:coze-api0.4.2-21387 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

35Weak · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 112 days ago
0.7/36Commit cadence — 1/52 weeks with commits
2.7/18Commit volume — 1 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year1
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push112
active_weeks_last_year1
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 20 releases published
7.2/36Release recency — latest release 387 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~20 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count20
latest_release_tagv0.4.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release387
mean_days_between_releases20
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?

63Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.8/60Stars — 214 stars
16.6/25Forks — 98 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks98
stars214
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

60Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 65% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 11 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.653
How it's scored
24/42Issue resolution — 57% of issues closed
22.5/30PR acceptance — 48/64 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs48
open_issues36
closed_issues48
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.571
closed_unmerged_prs16
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
0/20Verified domain
24.8/25Owner reach — 2,843 followers of coze-dev
15.2/25Track record — 22 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,843
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logincoze-dev
public_repos22
account_age_days965
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on maven
14/35Publish recency — latest publish 387 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagescom.coze:coze-api
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish387

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
2/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 4 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.2/2.5CI-Tests — 4 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate3.3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10.4/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind 2.14.2 (high 8.1), com.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp 3.14.9 (high 7.5)
8.7/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 2 affected: com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core 2.14.2 (high 7.5), com.squareup.okio:okio 1.17.2 (moderate 5.9)
26.3/40No advisories left outstanding — 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,574 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories8
affected_packages4
assessed_packages18
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 3, moderate 1
direct_affected_packages2
Matched the maven:com.coze:coze-api@0.4.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 18 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.

66Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://www.coze.cn/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 47 of 49 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://www.coze.cn/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.959
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — api/pom.xml, example/pom.xml, pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
4.1/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 49 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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_manifestsapi/pom.xml, example/pom.xml, pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/451 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes34,396
source_files_sampled451
oversized_source_files0
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 — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
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

214GitHub stars
11contributors
1commits, last 12 months
112days since last push
20releases
1bus factor
36open 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 ★ / 98 ⇿
0Stars
98Forks
20Releases

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.

02040608010098102024-122025-102026-07
Major 0Minor 3Patch 17

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.3 / 10
3.3aggregate

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 · 2026-09-14 23:47 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1CI-Tests4 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 1
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 28/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Vulnerabilities22 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 12
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:retrofit${retrofit.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:adapter-rxjava2${retrofit.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:converter-jackson${retrofit.version}api/pom.xml
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-api1.7.30api/pom.xml
Mavencom.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp${okhttp.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations${jackson.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind${jackson.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.auth0:java-jwt3.18.2api/pom.xml
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-api${jwt.version}api/pom.xml
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-impl${jwt.version}api/pom.xml
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-jackson${jwt.version}api/pom.xml
Mavencom.github.scribejava:scribejava-core8.3.1api/pom.xml
All dependencies 29

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 12 direct and 17 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavencom.auth0:java-jwt3.18.2direct
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations2.14.2direct
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.14.2direct
Mavencom.github.scribejava:scribejava-core8.3.1direct
Mavencom.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp3.14.9direct
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:adapter-rxjava22.9.0direct
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:converter-jackson2.9.0direct
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:retrofit2.9.0direct
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-api0.11.5direct
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-impl0.11.5direct
Mavenio.jsonwebtoken:jjwt-jackson0.11.5direct
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-api1.7.30direct
Mavench.qos.logback:logback-classic1.2.3indirect
Mavencom.coze:coze-api0.4.2indirect
Mavencom.diffplug.spotless:spotless-maven-plugin2.22.8indirect
Mavencom.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp-tls3.14.9indirect
Mavencom.squareup.retrofit2:retrofit-mock2.9.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.13.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-gpg-plugin3.2.5indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin3.5.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin3.2.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin3.2.5indirect
Mavenorg.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin0.8.11indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api5.10.2indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine5.10.2indirect
Mavenorg.mockito:mockito-core4.11.0indirect
Mavenorg.mockito:mockito-junit-jupiter4.11.0indirect
Mavenorg.projectlombok:lombok1.18.24indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.central:central-publishing-maven-plugin0.5.0indirect
Dependency advisories 4

Installing maven:com.coze:coze-api@0.4.2 pulls in 18 packages, direct and transitive: 4 carry known advisories, of which 2 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.14.2directhigh43.1.4
com.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp3.14.9directhigh14.9.2
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.14.2indirecthigh23.1.4
com.squareup.okio:okio1.17.2indirectmoderate13.4.0

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 — Maven.