Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 07:16 UTC

easymock / objenesis

Okay, it's pretty easy to instantiate objects in Java through standard reflection. However there are many cases where you need to go beyond what reflection provides. For example, if there's no public constructor, you want to bypass the constructor code, or set final fields. There are numerous clever (but fiddly) approaches to getting around this and this library provides a simple way to get at them. You will find the official site here.

Java · HTMLApache-2.0★ 630 stars⑂ 95 forkssince Jul 2013View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationLibraryhow this is determined

easymock/objenesis holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (81/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (45/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

80
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.

80
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 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

EasyMockOrganization
11 followers3 public repossince Jun 2013

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis-tck3.6-1977 days ago
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis3.6-2177 days ago
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis-exotic3.6-577 days ago
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis-tck-android3.2-142037 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

81Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
26.3/36Commit cadence — 38/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 120 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year120
human_commit_share0.47
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year38
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 77 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~387 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tag3.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release77
mean_days_between_releases387

Community & Adoption

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

70Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
45.4/60Stars — 630 stars
16.4/25Forks — 95 forks
8.1/15Watchers — 30 watchers
Inputs used
forks95
stars630
watchers30
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 93% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 20 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled20
top_contributor_share0.929
How it's scored
39.4/42Issue resolution — 94% of issues closed
28.1/30PR acceptance — 427/456 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs427
open_issues5
closed_issues76
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.938
closed_unmerged_prs29
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
7.8/25Owner reach — 11 followers of easymock
16.4/25Track record — 3 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers11
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_logineasymock
public_repos3
account_age_days4,878

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 4 package(s) on maven
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 77 days ago
20/20Version history — 21 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesorg.objenesis:objenesis-tck, org.objenesis:objenesis, org.objenesis:objenesis-exotic, org.objenesis:objenesis-tck-android
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish77

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — objenesis.org
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepageobjenesis.org
docs_siteobjenesis.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
2/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-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_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. 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_packages21
unassessed_packages7
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 21 resolved dependencies against OSV. 7 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.

45Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.3/40Legible commit history — 2 of 47 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.043
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — benchmark/pom.xml, exotic/pom.xml, main/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 53 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbenchmark/pom.xml, exotic/pom.xml, main/pom.xml, module-test/pom.xml, pom.xml, tck-android/pom.xml, tck/pom.xml, test/pom.xml, website/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.53
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/110 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes11,635
source_files_sampled110
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

630GitHub stars
20contributors
120commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
5open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch maven package 'org.objenesis:objenesis-module-test' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 95 ⇿
0Stars
95Forks
12Releases

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.

0204060801009442013-072019-092025-12
Major 0Minor 0Patch 2

Each point covers 12 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 07:16 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
10CI-Tests17 out of 17 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
2Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 2
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis${project.version}exotic/pom.xml
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis${project.version}module-test/pom.xml
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom${junit5.version}pom.xml
Maven${project.groupId}:objenesis-tck${project.version}tck-android/pom.xml
Maven${project.groupId}:objenesis${project.version}tck-android/pom.xml
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis${project.version}tck/pom.xml
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis${project.version}website/pom.xml
All dependencies 28

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 3 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom5.13.4direct
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis3.6direct
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis3.7-SNAPSHOTdirect
Mavencom.github.spotbugs:spotbugs-maven-plugin—indirect
Mavencom.github.spotbugs:spotbugs-maven-plugin4.10.5.0indirect
Mavencom.google.android:android4.1.1.4indirect
Mavencom.google.android:android-test4.1.1.4indirect
Mavencom.keyboardsamurais.maven:maven-timestamp-plugin—indirect
Mavencom.keyboardsamurais.maven:maven-timestamp-plugin1.0indirect
Mavencom.mycila:license-maven-plugin—indirect
Mavencom.mycila:license-maven-plugin4.6indirect
Mavencom.simpligility.maven.plugins:android-maven-plugin4.6.0indirect
Mavennet.bytebuddy:byte-buddy1.18.14indirect
Mavenorg.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin—indirect
Mavenorg.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin5.1.9indirect
Mavenorg.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.framework7.0.5indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:exec-maven-plugin—indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:exec-maven-plugin3.6.4indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:versions-maven-plugin2.23.0indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.xsite:xsite-maven-plugin1.4indirect
Mavenorg.eclipse.m2e:lifecycle-mapping1.0.0indirect
Mavenorg.gaul:modernizer-maven-plugin3.5.0indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter—indirect
Mavenorg.objenesis:objenesis-test3.7-SNAPSHOTindirect
Mavenorg.openjdk.jmh:jmh-core1.37indirect
Mavenorg.openjdk.jmh:jmh-generator-annprocess1.37indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.central:central-publishing-maven-plugin—indirect
Mavenorg.sonatype.central:central-publishing-maven-plugin0.11.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 21 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 7 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

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.