Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-08 23:09 UTC

emilianobonassi / jpbc

jPBC fork for get Maven works again

JavaCustom license★ 17 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Sep 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

emilianobonassi/jpbc holds a health index of 23 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (48/100) and lowest on Vitality (13/100). It was last updated 2752 days ago.

23
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

23
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 33 is calibrated to 27 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Emiliano BonassiPersonal account
376 followers81 public repossince Jul 2014

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?

13Critical · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 2,752 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2,752
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases1 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 3,996 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencecadence unknown (single release)
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count1
latest_release_tagv2.0.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release3,996
mean_days_between_releases
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?

37Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
19.5/60Stars17 stars
9.3/25Forks14 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars17
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense 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_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?

42Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution25% of issues closed
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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues3
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.25
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): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backingpersonal (user) account
0/20Verified domainnot applicable to user accounts
18.5/25Owner reach376 followers of emilianobonassi
25/25Track record81 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers376
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginemilianobonassi
public_repos81
account_age_days4,450
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
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.
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://gas.dia.unisa.it/projects/jpbc/index.html
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://gas.dia.unisa.it/projects/jpbc/index.html
docs_sitehttp://gas.dia.unisa.it/projects/jpbc/index.html
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

23At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
19.6/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories1 affected: org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16 1.46 (moderate 5.5)
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
35.2/40No advisories left outstanding1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1,965 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories4
affected_packages2
assessed_packages14
unassessed_packages1
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
direct_affected_packages1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 14 resolved dependencies against OSV. 1 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.

48Weak · 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 historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapjpbc-android/pom.xml, jpbc-api/pom.xml, jpbc-benchmark/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingJava (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifestsjpbc-android/pom.xml, jpbc-api/pom.xml, jpbc-benchmark/pom.xml, jpbc-crypto/pom.xml, jpbc-mm/pom.xml, jpbc-pbc/pom.xml, jpbc-plaf/pom.xml, jpbc-site-skin/pom.xml, jpbc-test/pom.xml, pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes1/363 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes86,857
source_files_sampled363
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

17GitHub stars
-contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,752days since last push
1releases
-bus factor
3open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Contributor list unavailable
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-mm' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-pbc' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-test' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-crypto' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-android' from its registry
  • Could not fetch maven package 'it.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-benchmark' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks

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.

0246810121212016-092019-082022-06

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.0 / 10
1.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-08 23:09 UTC

0Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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 0/6 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
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
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 19
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-android/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-android/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-benchmark/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-benchmark/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-pbc2.0.0jpbc-benchmark/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-crypto/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-crypto/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-pbc2.0.0jpbc-crypto/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-mm2.0.0jpbc-crypto/pom.xml
Mavenorg.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk161.46jpbc-crypto/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-mm/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-mm/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-pbc/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-pbc/pom.xml
Mavennet.java.dev.jna:jna3.2.5jpbc-pbc/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-plaf/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0jpbc-test/pom.xml
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0jpbc-test/pom.xml
Mavenorg.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-core1.1.3pom.xml
All dependencies 15

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-api2.0.0direct
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-mm2.0.0direct
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-pbc2.0.0direct
Mavenit.unisa.dia.gas:jpbc-plaf2.0.0direct
Mavennet.java.dev.jna:jna3.2.5direct
Mavenorg.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-core1.1.3direct
Mavenorg.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk161.46direct
Mavencom.google.android:android4.1.1.4indirect
Mavencom.jayway.maven.plugins.android.generation2:android-maven-pluginindirect
Mavenjunit:junit4.8.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-changes-plugin2.3indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin2.3indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin2.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-project-info-reports-plugin2.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin2.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 14 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 1 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk161.46directmoderate31.73
junit:junit4.8.2indirectmoderate14.13.1

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.