Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 04:41 UTC

hiero-ledger / hiero-block-node

New Block Node services

JavaApache-2.0★ 37 stars⑂ 27 forkssince May 2024View on GitHub ↗

hiero-ledger/hiero-block-node holds a health index of 91 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (63/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

91
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.

91
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 77 is calibrated to 91 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Hiero LedgerOrganization
249 followers41 public repossince Aug 2024

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 recencylast push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume768 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year768
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~4.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.38.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases4.3

Community & Adoption

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

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/60Stars37 stars
11.8/25Forks27 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks27
stars37
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING 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_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 33% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth34 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled34
top_contributor_share0.334
How it's scored
30.8/42Issue resolution73% of issues closed
26.1/30PR acceptance1,373/1,578 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,373
open_issues431
closed_issues1,181
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.733
closed_unmerged_prs205
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
17.2/25Owner reach249 followers of hiero-ledger
15.6/25Track record41 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers249
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginhiero-ledger
public_repos41
account_age_days693
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows11 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
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
topicshacktoberfest
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?

73Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0.5/2.5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
4.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate7.3

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.

63Moderate · 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
18/18One-command bootstraptools-and-tests/scripts/node-operations/Taskfile.yml, tools-and-tests/scripts/solo-e2e-test/Taskfile.yml
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingJava (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
5/8Automated maintenancedependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filestools-and-tests/scripts/node-operations/Taskfile.yml, tools-and-tests/scripts/solo-e2e-test/Taskfile.yml
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
54.1/55Manageable file sizes14/836 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes184,912
source_files_sampled836
oversized_source_files14
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)protobuf-sources/src/main/proto-overrides/block/stream/record_file_item.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_access_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_stream_publish_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_stream_subscribe_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/network-data.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/node_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/proof_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/reconnect_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/shared_message_types.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/state_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/address_book_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/block_node_source.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/block_ranges_state.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/bulk_load_state.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/mn_response.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/node_stake_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/root_hash_of_all_previous_blocks_hasher.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/tss_publication_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/unparsed.proto, tools-and-tests/tools/src/main/java/org/hiero/block/tools/config/proto/network_capacity_config.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesprotobuf-sources/src/main/proto-overrides/block/stream/record_file_item.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_access_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_stream_publish_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/block_stream_subscribe_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/network-data.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/node_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/proof_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/reconnect_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/shared_message_types.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/block-node/api/state_service.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/address_book_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/block_node_source.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/block_ranges_state.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/bulk_load_state.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/mn_response.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/node_stake_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/root_hash_of_all_previous_blocks_hasher.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/tss_publication_history.proto, protobuf-sources/src/main/proto/internal/unparsed.proto, tools-and-tests/tools/src/main/java/org/hiero/block/tools/config/proto/network_capacity_config.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

37GitHub stars
34contributors
768commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
431open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.3 / 10
7.3aggregate

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 04:41 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
4Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
2CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: InProgress
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 11 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
9SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 9
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@types/k61.4.0indirect
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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