Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 08:59 UTC

guardian / content-atom

Schema for a content atom

Thrift · ScalaApache-2.0★ 1 star⑂ 2 forkssince Aug 2015View on GitHub ↗

guardian/content-atom 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 AI Readiness (16/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 5 contributors account 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

The GuardianOrganization
539 followers2,063 public repossince Dec 2009

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
npm@guardian/content-atom-model12.0.17,4834029 days ago

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 recencylast push 2 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence15/52 weeks with commits
17.3/18Commit volume83 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year83
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year15

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases29 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 29 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~26.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count29
latest_release_tagv12.0.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release29
mean_days_between_releases26.1
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?

45Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars1 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
9.1/15Watchers45 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars1
watchers45
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
51.7/80Monthly downloads7,483 downloads/month across npm
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packages@guardian/content-atom-model
dependents
ecosystemsnpm
total_downloads
monthly_downloads7,483
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
45.9/54Bus factor5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19.3/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 14% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth46 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor5
contributors_sampled46
top_contributor_share0.141
How it's scored
10.5/42Issue resolution25% of issues closed
26.6/30PR acceptance175/197 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs175
open_issues3
closed_issues1
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.25
closed_unmerged_prs22
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
19.6/25Owner reach539 followers of guardian
25/25Track record2,063 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers539
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginguardian
public_repos2,063
account_age_days6,065
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on npm
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 29 days ago
20/20Version history40 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packages@guardian/content-atom-model
ecosystemsnpm
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish29

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

56Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsproduction
has_wikino
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

54Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
5/5SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

16Critical · 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
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
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
0/45Type-checkable codeThrift without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/1 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageThrift
largest_source_bytes655
source_files_sampled1
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

1GitHub stars
46contributors
83commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
29releases
5bus factor
3open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 08:59 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests8 out of 8 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 8/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained27 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmthrift^0.20.0package.json
All dependencies 63

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npmthrift0.20.0direct
Mavencom.fasterxml:classmate1.5.1indirect
Mavencom.github.ben-manes.caffeine:caffeine2.9.2indirect
Mavencom.google.errorprone:error_prone_annotations2.5.1indirect
Mavencom.gu:content-entity-model_2.124.0.0indirect
Mavencom.gu:content-entity-model_2.134.0.0indirect
Mavencom.gu:content-entity-thrift4.0.0indirect
Mavencom.thoughtworks.paranamer:paranamer2.8indirect
Mavencom.twitter:scrooge-core_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:scrooge-core_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-core_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-core_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-function_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-function_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-reflect_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-reflect_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-slf4j-api_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-slf4j-api_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-validator_2.1222.1.0indirect
Mavencom.twitter:util-validator_2.1322.1.0indirect
Mavenio.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils4.12indirect
Mavenjakarta.annotation:jakarta.annotation-api2.1.1indirect
Mavenjakarta.el:jakarta.el-api4.0.0indirect
Mavenjakarta.servlet:jakarta.servlet-api5.0.0indirect
Mavenjakarta.validation:jakarta.validation-api3.0.0indirect
Mavenjavax.annotation:javax.annotation-api1.3.2indirect
Mavenjline:jline2.14.6indirect
Mavennet.java.dev.jna:jna5.13.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-lang33.12.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents.client5:httpclient55.2.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents.core5:httpcore55.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.httpcomponents.core5:httpcore5-h25.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.thrift:libthrift0.20.0indirect
Mavenorg.checkerframework:checker-qual3.10.0indirect
Mavenorg.glassfish:jakarta.el4.0.0indirect
Mavenorg.hibernate.validator:hibernate-validator7.0.1.Finalindirect
Mavenorg.jboss.logging:jboss-logging3.4.1.Finalindirect
Mavenorg.jline:jline3.22.0indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-ast_2.124.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-ast_2.134.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-core_2.124.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-core_2.134.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-scalap_2.124.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.json4s:json4s-scalap_2.134.0.3indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang.modules:scala-collection-compat_2.122.4.4indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang.modules:scala-collection-compat_2.132.4.4indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang.modules:scala-parser-combinators_2.121.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang.modules:scala-parser-combinators_2.131.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang.modules:scala-xml_2.122.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-compiler2.12.18indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-compiler2.13.12indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-library2.12.18indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-library2.13.12indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-reflect2.12.18indirect
Mavenorg.scala-lang:scala-reflect2.13.12indirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-api1.7.36indirect
npmasync-limiter1.0.1indirect
npmbrowser-or-node1.3.0indirect
npmisomorphic-ws4.0.1indirect
npmnode-int640.4.0indirect
npmq1.5.1indirect
npmtypescript5.9.3indirect
npmws5.2.4indirect
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 statisticsnpm.