Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 23:54 UTC

getodk / collect

ODK Collect is an Android app for filling out forms. It's been used to collect billions of data points in challenging environments around the world. Contribute and make the world a better place! ✨📋✨

Kotlin · JavaCustom license★ 787 stars⑂ 1,434 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

getodk/collect holds a health index of 89 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (47/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

89
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.

89
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 75 is calibrated to 89 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ODKOrganization · verified domain
370 followers53 public repossince Dec 2013

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?

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
36/36Commit cadence — 52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 1,531 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,531
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~8.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2026.3.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases8.4

Community & Adoption

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

88Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47/60Stars — 787 stars
25/25Forks — 1,434 forks
9.7/15Watchers — 57 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,434
stars787
watchers57
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

94Exceptional
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.5/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 40% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 34 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.401
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance — 3,422/3,936 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs3,422
open_issues342
closed_issues3,091
prs_merged_7d2
prs_decided_7d2
prs_merged_30d19
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio0.9
closed_unmerged_prs514
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
20/20Verified domain
18.5/25Owner reach — 370 followers of getodk
24.6/25Track record — 53 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers370
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logingetodk
public_repos53
account_age_days4,651

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

64Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
16/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.getodk.org/collect-intro
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsodk, global-development, data-collection, global-health, mhealth, xforms, android, java, social-impact, mobile-data-collection
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.getodk.org/collect-intro
docs_sitehttps://docs.getodk.org/collect-intro
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

47Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 34 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 77 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
21.3/40Legible commit history — 40 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.4
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — analytics/build.gradle.kts, androidshared/build.gradle.kts, androidtest/build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Kotlin (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
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
toolchain_manifestsanalytics/build.gradle.kts, androidshared/build.gradle.kts, androidtest/build.gradle.kts, async/build.gradle.kts, audio-clips/build.gradle.kts, audio-recorder/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, collect_app/build.gradle, crash-handler/build.gradle.kts, db/build.gradle.kts, draw/build.gradle.kts, entities/build.gradle.kts, errors/build.gradle.kts, external-app/build.gradle.kts, forms-test/build.gradle.kts, forms/build.gradle.kts, fragments-test/build.gradle.kts, geo/build.gradle.kts, google-maps/build.gradle.kts, icons/build.gradle.kts, image-loader/build.gradle.kts, lists/build.gradle.kts, location/build.gradle.kts, mapbox/build.gradle.kts, maps/build.gradle.kts, material/build.gradle.kts, metadata/build.gradle.kts, mobile-device-management/build.gradle.kts, nbistubs/build.gradle.kts, open-rosa/build.gradle.kts, permissions/build.gradle.kts, printer/build.gradle.kts, projects/build.gradle.kts, qr-code/build.gradle.kts, selfie-camera/build.gradle.kts, service-test/build.gradle.kts, settings/build.gradle.kts, shadows/build.gradle.kts, shared/build.gradle.kts, strings/build.gradle.kts, test-forms/build.gradle.kts, test-shared/build.gradle.kts, timedgrid/build.gradle.kts, upgrade/build.gradle.kts, web-page/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 1/1,674 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes99,457
source_files_sampled1,674
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

787GitHub stars
100contributors
1,531commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
342open 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 ★ / 1,434 ⇿
0Stars
1,434Forks
100Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

05001,0001,5001,434172017-092022-032026-09
Major 0Minor 10Patch 36

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 23:53 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
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
8CI-Tests7 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 8
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 34 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities77 existing vulnerabilities detected
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.