Public recordAt Risk
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-01 15:38 UTC
hamiltop / rethinkdb
An open-source distributed JSON document database with a pleasant and powerful query language.
hamiltop/rethinkdb holds a health index of 21 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (53/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (9/100). It was last updated 4110 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.
21
overall / 100Software 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.
21
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)
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 27 is calibrated to 21 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).
Ownership
Peter HamiltonPersonal account
63 followers85 public repossince Aug 2010
This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish | Tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | rethinkdbpoints to another repo — not scored | 2.4.10.post1 | 55,827 | 76 | 965 days ago | — |
| RubyGems | rethinkdbpoints to another repo — not scored | 2.4.0.0 | - | 39 | 2421 days ago | — |
| npm | rethinkdbpoints to another repo — not scored | 2.4.2 | 64,873 | 50 | 2420 days ago | databasenosqlreqlquery-language |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
20
Development activity
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/36 | Push recency — last push 4,110 days ago |
| 0/36 | Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits |
| 0/18 | Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 0 |
| human_commit_share | 1 |
| days_since_last_push | 4,110 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 0 |
Release discipline
48Weak
How it's scored
| 16.2/27 | Ships releases — 78 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| 0/36 | Release recency — latest release 4,124 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~8.6 days |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 78 |
| latest_release_tag | v2.0.1 |
| releases_from_tags | yes |
| days_since_latest_release | 4,124 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 8.6 |
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?
9
Popularity & adoption
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/60 | Stars — 0 stars |
| 0/25 | Forks — 0 forks |
| 0/15 | Watchers — 1 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 0 |
| stars | 0 |
| watchers | 1 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
19Critical
How it's scored
| 0/22.5 | README |
| 16.9/22.5 | License — license file present, not a recognized license |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 0/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 0/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | no |
| has_license | no |
| readme_badges | — |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | no |
| has_code_of_conduct | no |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
42
Maintainer resilience (bus factor)
61Moderate
How it's scored
| 25.2/54 | Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 12/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 47% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 62 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 54 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 2 |
| contributors_sampled | 62 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.468 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
1Critical
How it's scored
| 0/42 | Issue resolution — no issues or no data |
| 0/30 | PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 0/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 0 |
| open_issues | 0 |
| closed_issues | 0 |
| prs_merged_7d | — |
| prs_decided_7d | — |
| prs_merged_30d | — |
| prs_decided_30d | — |
| issue_closed_ratio | — |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 0 |
| first_time_authors_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | — |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
60Moderate
How it's scored
| 10/30 | Ownership backing — personal (user) account |
| 0/20 | Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts |
| 13/25 | Owner reach — 63 followers of hamiltop |
| 25/25 | Track record — 85 public repos, account ~16 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 63 |
| owner_type | User |
| is_verified | — |
| owner_login | hamiltop |
| public_repos | 85 |
| account_age_days | 5,840 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
24
Engineering practices
30At Risk
How it's scored
| 0/24 | CI workflows |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 0/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data |
Inputs used
| has_ci | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
Documentation
15Critical
How it's scored
| 0/30 | README |
| 0/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — http://www.rethinkdb.com |
| 0/10 | Repository description |
| 0/10 | Topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | — |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | http://www.rethinkdb.com |
| docs_site | http://www.rethinkdb.com |
| has_readme | no |
| has_docs_dir | no |
| has_description | no |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
33
Security posture
16Critical
How it's scored
| 6.8/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code |
| 0/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| 0/2.5 | CI-Tests — no data |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 54 contributing companies or organizations |
| 0/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.2/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 0/7.5 | Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Packaging — no data |
| 0/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | SAST — no SAST tool detected |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 0/7.5 | Signed-Releases — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — no data |
| 0/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 71 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 13 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 5 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 1.6 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.
Dependency advisories
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 35/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 25/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory |
| 0/40 | No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 0 |
| affected_packages | 0 |
| assessed_packages | 2 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | none |
| direct_affected_packages | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:rethinkdb@2.4.10.post1 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 2 packages. 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.
53
Agent context & guidance
10Critical
How it's scored
| 0/45 | Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 10.1/40 | Legible commit history — 19 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.19 |
| agent_instruction_files | — |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | — |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
51Moderate
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — Makefile, admin/Makefile, drivers/Makefile, drivers/javascript/Makefile, drivers/python/Makefile, drivers/ruby/Makefile, external/gtest_1.6.0/make/Makefile, external/gtest_1.6.0/scripts/test/Makefile, external/re2_20140111/Makefile, external/re2_20140111/re2/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/buildtools/clang_format/script/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/gtest/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/gtest/scripts/test/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gtest/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gtest/scripts/test/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/tools/gcmole/Makefile, packaging/ami/Makefile, scripts/adtproto/Makefile, scripts/netrecord/Makefile, src/Makefile, test/protobuf_test/Makefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — C++ (statically typed) |
| 0/10 | Reproducible environment |
| 0/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| 0/8 | Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed |
| 0/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | — |
| has_dockerfile | no |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | Makefile, admin/Makefile, drivers/Makefile, drivers/javascript/Makefile, drivers/python/Makefile, drivers/ruby/Makefile, external/gtest_1.6.0/make/Makefile, external/gtest_1.6.0/scripts/test/Makefile, external/re2_20140111/Makefile, external/re2_20140111/re2/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/buildtools/clang_format/script/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/gtest/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/gtest/scripts/test/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gmock/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gtest/make/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/testing/gtest/scripts/test/Makefile, external/v8_3.30.33.16/tools/gcmole/Makefile, packaging/ami/Makefile, scripts/adtproto/Makefile, scripts/netrecord/Makefile, src/Makefile, test/protobuf_test/Makefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0 |
| toolchain_manifests | — |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0 |
Code legibility for models
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed) |
| 53.2/55 | Manageable file sizes — 192/5,722 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | C++ |
| largest_source_bytes | 6,323,021 |
| source_files_sampled | 5,722 |
| oversized_source_files | 192 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 40/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — src/rdb_protocol/ql2.proto, src/rdb_protocol/ql2_extensions.proto |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — demos, example, samples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | demos, example, samples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| api_schema_files | src/rdb_protocol/ql2.proto, src/rdb_protocol/ql2_extensions.proto |
| interfaces_expected_of | — |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.
Key facts
0GitHub stars
62contributors
0commits, last 12 months
4,110days since last push
78releases
2bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Community profile unavailable
- Could not fetch npm package 'rethinkdb-webui' from its registry
- pypi package 'rethinkdb' points at a different repository (https://github.com/RethinkDB/rethinkdb-python); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- rubygems package 'rethinkdb' points at a different repository (http://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- npm package 'rethinkdb' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rethinkdb/rethinkdb); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch npm package 'packed-bluebird' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'packed-handlebars' from its registry
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
More detail
OpenSSF Scorecard 1.6 / 10
1.6aggregate
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).
| 9 | Binary-Artifacts | binaries present in source code |
| 0 | Branch-Protection | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| n/a | CI-Tests | no pull request found |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 0 | Code-Review | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 54 contributing companies or organizations |
| n/a | Dangerous-Workflow | no workflows found |
| 0 | Dependency-Update-Tool | no update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 9 | License | license file detected |
| 0 | Maintained | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| n/a | Packaging | packaging workflow not detected |
| 0 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | SAST | no SAST tool detected |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| n/a | Signed-Releases | no releases found |
| n/a | Token-Permissions | No tokens found |
| 0 | Vulnerabilities | 71 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 24
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| npm | bluebird | ^2.3.2 | admin/package.json |
| npm | browserify | ^9.0.3 | admin/package.json |
| npm | coffeeify | ^1.0.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | del | ^1.1.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp | ^3.8.11 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-changed | ^1.1.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-less | ^3.0.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-newer | ^0.5.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-rename | ^1.2.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-replace | ^0.5.3 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-sourcemaps | ^1.4.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | gulp-util | ^3.0.4 | admin/package.json |
| npm | handlebars | ^3.0.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | hbsfy | ^2.2.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | less | ^2.4.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | uber-watchify | ^2.3.2 | admin/package.json |
| npm | uglifyify | ^3.0.1 | admin/package.json |
| npm | vinyl | ^0.4.6 | admin/package.json |
| npm | vinyl-buffer | ^1.0.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | vinyl-source-stream | ^1.0.0 | admin/package.json |
| npm | yargs | ^3.4.5 | admin/package.json |
| npm | bluebird | >= 2.3.2 < 3 | drivers/javascript/package.json |
| npm | bluebird | 2.3.2 | external/bluebird_2.3.2/package.json |
| npm | handlebars | 1.3.0 | external/handlebars_1.3.0/package.json |
All dependencies not collected
The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
Dependency advisories 0
Installing pypi:rethinkdb@2.4.10.post1 pulls in 2 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.
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.
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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.
How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI, RubyGems, npm.