Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 19:42 UTC

fortify / github-action

Fortify GitHub Actions

TypeScript · Shell · JavaScriptCustom license★ 18 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Sep 2023View on GitHub ↗

fortify/github-action holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Vitality (72/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (36/100). It was last updated 18 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

56
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

56
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 54 is calibrated to 56 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

148 followers65 public repossince May 2017

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 18 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence8/52 weeks with commits
13.6/18Commit volume32 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year32
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push18
active_weeks_last_year8
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases27 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 63 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~57.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count27
latest_release_tagv3.1.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release63
mean_days_between_releases57.8
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
20/60Stars18 stars
9.3/25Forks14 forks
1.7/15Watchers3 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars18
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
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
6.8/13.5Contributor breadth5 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled5
top_contributor_share0.8
How it's scored
26/42Issue resolution62% of issues closed
23.9/30PR acceptance39/49 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs39
open_issues16
closed_issues26
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.619
closed_unmerged_prs10
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
15.6/25Owner reach148 followers of fortify
25/25Track record65 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers148
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginfortify
public_repos65
account_age_days3,338
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

50Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows2 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.eslintrc.js
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
4/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsfortify, fortify-integration, fortify-on-demand, fortify-sc-sast, github-actions, security
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?

38Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
0.5/2.5CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0.8/2.5Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
3.8/7.5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

36Weak · 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
0/18One-command bootstrap
0/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.eslintrc.js
11/11Static type checkingsetup/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configssetup/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeTypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/2 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes3,468
source_files_sampled2
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

18GitHub stars
5contributors
32commits, last 12 months
18days since last push
27releases
1bus factor
16open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch npm package 'fortify-setup' from its registry

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.8 / 10
3.8aggregate

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 · 2026-07-17 19:42 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
2CI-Tests2 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 2
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained17 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
5Vulnerabilities5 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@actions/core^3.0.1setup/package.json
npm@fortify/setup^2.1.3setup/package.json
All dependencies 119

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 117 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@actions/core3.0.1direct
npm@fortify/setup2.1.3direct
npm@actions/exec3.0.0indirect
npm@actions/http-client4.0.1indirect
npm@actions/io3.0.2indirect
npm@eslint-community/eslint-utils4.9.1indirect
npm@eslint-community/regexpp4.12.2indirect
npm@eslint/config-array0.23.5indirect
npm@eslint/config-helpers0.5.5indirect
npm@eslint/core1.2.1indirect
npm@eslint/object-schema3.0.5indirect
npm@eslint/plugin-kit0.7.1indirect
npm@humanfs/core0.19.2indirect
npm@humanfs/node0.16.8indirect
npm@humanfs/types0.15.0indirect
npm@humanwhocodes/module-importer1.0.1indirect
npm@humanwhocodes/retry0.4.3indirect
npm@isaacs/fs-minipass4.0.1indirect
npm@types/esrecurse4.3.1indirect
npm@types/estree1.0.9indirect
npm@types/json-schema7.0.15indirect
npm@types/node24.12.4indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/eslint-plugin8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/parser8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/project-service8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/scope-manager8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/tsconfig-utils8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/type-utils8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/types8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/typescript-estree8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/utils8.59.3indirect
npm@typescript-eslint/visitor-keys8.59.3indirect
npm@vercel/ncc0.38.4indirect
npmacorn8.16.0indirect
npmacorn-jsx5.3.2indirect
npmajv6.15.0indirect
npmbalanced-match4.0.4indirect
npmbluebird3.7.2indirect
npmbrace-expansion5.0.6indirect
npmchownr3.0.0indirect
npmcore-util-is1.0.3indirect
npmcross-spawn7.0.6indirect
npmdebug4.4.3indirect
npmdeep-is0.1.4indirect
npmduplexer20.1.4indirect
npmescape-string-regexp4.0.0indirect
npmeslint10.3.0indirect
npmeslint-scope9.1.2indirect
npmeslint-visitor-keys3.4.3indirect
npmeslint-visitor-keys5.0.1indirect
npmespree11.2.0indirect
npmesquery1.7.0indirect
npmesrecurse4.3.0indirect
npmestraverse5.3.0indirect
npmesutils2.0.3indirect
npmfast-deep-equal3.1.3indirect
npmfast-json-stable-stringify2.1.0indirect
npmfast-levenshtein2.0.6indirect
npmfdir6.5.0indirect
npmfile-entry-cache8.0.0indirect
npmfind-up5.0.0indirect
npmflat-cache4.0.1indirect
npmflatted3.4.2indirect
npmfs-extra11.3.5indirect
npmglob-parent6.0.2indirect
npmgraceful-fs4.2.11indirect
npmignore5.3.2indirect
npmignore7.0.5indirect
npmimurmurhash0.1.4indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmis-extglob2.1.1indirect
npmis-glob4.0.3indirect
npmisarray1.0.0indirect
npmisexe2.0.0indirect
npmjson-buffer3.0.1indirect
npmjson-schema-traverse0.4.1indirect
npmjson-stable-stringify-without-jsonify1.0.1indirect
npmjsonfile6.2.1indirect
npmkeyv4.5.4indirect
npmlevn0.4.1indirect
npmlocate-path6.0.0indirect
npmminimatch10.2.5indirect
npmminipass7.1.3indirect
npmminizlib3.1.0indirect
npmms2.1.3indirect
npmnatural-compare1.4.0indirect
npmnode-int640.4.0indirect
npmoptionator0.9.4indirect
npmp-limit3.1.0indirect
npmp-locate5.0.0indirect
npmpath-exists4.0.0indirect
npmpath-key3.1.1indirect
npmpicomatch4.0.4indirect
npmprelude-ls1.2.1indirect
npmprettier3.8.3indirect
npmprocess-nextick-args2.0.1indirect
npmpunycode2.3.1indirect
npmreadable-stream2.3.8indirect
npmsafe-buffer5.1.2indirect
npmsemver7.8.0indirect
npmshebang-command2.0.0indirect
npmshebang-regex3.0.0indirect
npmstring_decoder1.1.1indirect
npmtar7.5.15indirect
npmtinyglobby0.2.16indirect
npmts-api-utils2.5.0indirect
npmtunnel0.0.6indirect
npmtype-check0.4.0indirect
npmtypescript5.9.3indirect
npmundici6.25.0indirect
npmundici-types7.16.0indirect
npmuniversalify2.0.1indirect
npmunzipper0.12.3indirect
npmuri-js4.4.1indirect
npmutil-deprecate1.0.2indirect
npmwhich2.0.2indirect
npmword-wrap1.2.5indirect
npmyallist5.0.0indirect
npmyocto-queue0.1.0indirect
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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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