Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 22:15 UTC

drallgood / jpasskit

jPasskit is an Java™ implementation of the Apple™ PassKit Web Service.

JavaApache-2.0★ 308 stars⑂ 113 forkssince Sep 2012View on GitHub ↗

drallgood/jpasskit holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Security (45/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Patrice Brend'amourPersonal account
60 followers56 public repossince Sep 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
21.5/36Commit cadence — 31/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 168 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year168
human_commit_share0.61
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year31
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 18 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 14 days ago
12.6/27Release cadence — a release every ~136.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count18
latest_release_tagv0.5.9
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release14
mean_days_between_releases136.5

Community & Adoption

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

74Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
40.3/60Stars — 308 stars
17.1/25Forks — 113 forks
7.9/15Watchers — 27 watchers
Inputs used
forks113
stars308
watchers27
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.86
How it's scored
41.3/42Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed
21/30PR acceptance — 378/540 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs378
open_issues3
closed_issues172
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.983
closed_unmerged_prs162
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
12.8/25Owner reach — 60 followers of drallgood
24.8/25Track record — 56 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers60
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_logindrallgood
public_repos56
account_age_days6,243
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

60Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswallet, passkit, java, apple, webservice, reward, boardingpass, server, generator
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?

45Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
20/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestsbuild-logic/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, jpasskit.server/build.gradle.kts, jpasskit/build.gradle.kts
has_codeql_workflowyes
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes

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.

62Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 59 of 61 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.967
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — build-logic/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, jpasskit.server/build.gradle.kts (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 — 37 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsbuild-logic/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, jpasskit.server/build.gradle.kts, jpasskit/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.37
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/114 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes24,412
source_files_sampled114
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

308GitHub stars
23contributors
168commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
18releases
1bus factor
3open issues
Mavenpackage 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/drallgood/jpasskit: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: Something went wrong while executing your query on 2026-10-19T22:15:09Z. Please include `A67A:1DBA9D:5F3AB38:88F1E57:6AD6966B` when reporting this issue.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 113 ⇿
0Stars
113Forks
18Releases

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.

02040608010012011332012-092019-102026-10
Major 0Minor 1Patch 5

Each point covers 13 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.