Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-07-30 23:47 UTC

jakartaee / expression-language

Jakarta Expression Language

JavaCustom license★ 86 stars⑂ 51 forkssince May 2018View on GitHub ↗

jakartaee/expression-language holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (70/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (40/100). It was last updated 3 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

65
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.

65
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 60 is calibrated to 65 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Jakarta EEOrganization
739 followers74 public repossince Feb 2018

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Mavenjakarta.el:jakarta.el-api6.1.0-M2-1685 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

61Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 3 days ago
18/36Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits
16.9/18Commit volume — 75 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year75
human_commit_share0.59
days_since_last_push3
active_weeks_last_year26
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 3 releases published
0/36Release recency — latest release 745 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~795.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count3
latest_release_tag6.0.1-RELEASE-api
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release745
mean_days_between_releases795.6

Community & Adoption

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

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.3/60Stars — 86 stars
14.2/25Forks — 51 forks
6.7/15Watchers — 17 watchers
Inputs used
forks51
stars86
watchers17
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
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?

70Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
6/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 73% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 23 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled23
top_contributor_share0.732
How it's scored
41.7/42Issue resolution — 99% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 293/329 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs293
open_issues1
closed_issues128
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.992
closed_unmerged_prs36
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 backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.6/25Owner reach — 739 followers of jakartaee
25/25Track record — 74 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers739
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginjakartaee
public_repos74
account_age_days3,096

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on maven
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 85 days ago
20/20Version history — 16 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesjakarta.el:jakarta.el-api
ecosystemsmaven
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish85

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

40Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.el
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://projects.eclipse.org/projects/ee4j.el
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 9 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 12 commit(s) and 0 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
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): branch_protection, dangerous_workflow, packaging, pinned_dependencies, token_permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages23
unassessed_packages11
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 23 resolved dependencies against OSV. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so the repository dependency graph was assessed instead. That graph mixes development and test pins with shipped dependencies, so only the declared runtime dependencies are scored; transitive findings are reported as context and excluded from the score. 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.

49Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
8.1/40Legible commit history — 9 of 59 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.153
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — api/pom.xml, pom.xml, spec/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 41 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
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_manifestsapi/pom.xml, pom.xml, spec/pom.xml, tck/docs/userguide/pom.xml, tck/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0.41
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 2/132 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes87,923
source_files_sampled132
oversized_source_files2

Key facts

86GitHub stars
23contributors
75commits, last 12 months
3days since last push
3releases
1bus factor
1open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch maven package 'jakarta.el:expression-language-tck' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 51 ⇿
0Stars
51Forks
3Releases

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.

01325383722018-072022-022025-10
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 7 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-30 23:47 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
0CI-Tests0 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/8 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 9 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained12 commit(s) and 0 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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 8
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom6.1.0api/pom.xml
Mavenorg.jruby:jruby-complete${jruby.version}spec/pom.xml
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj${asciidoctorj.version}spec/pom.xml
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj-pdf${asciidoctorj.pdf.version}spec/pom.xml
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom6.1.0tck/pom.xml
Mavenjakarta.el:jakarta.el-api6.1.0-SNAPSHOTtck/pom.xml
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-apitck/pom.xml
Mavenjakarta.tck:sigtest-maven-plugin2.6tck/pom.xml
All dependencies 34

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 9 direct and 25 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenjakarta.el:jakarta.el-api6.1.0-SNAPSHOTdirect
Mavenjakarta.tck:sigtest-maven-plugin2.6direct
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj2.4.2direct
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj3.0.1direct
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj-pdf1.5.3direct
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj-pdf2.3.23direct
Mavenorg.jruby:jruby-complete10.0.6.0direct
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-apidirect
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom6.1.0direct
Mavenorg.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin6.0.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin3.8.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin3.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.15.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin3.0.0-M3indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin3.8.6indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-scm-publish-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-scm-publish-plugin3.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin3.5.6indirect
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctor-maven-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctor-maven-plugin10.0.6.0indirect
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctor-maven-plugin2.2.4indirect
Mavenorg.asciidoctor:asciidoctorj-diagram2.1.0indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin3.6.1indirect
Mavenorg.freemarker:freemarker2.3.30indirect
Mavenorg.glassfish.doc:glassfish-doc-maven-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.glassfish.doc:glassfish-doc-maven-plugin1.3indirect
Mavenorg.jbake:jbake-maven-pluginindirect
Mavenorg.jbake:jbake-maven-plugin2.7.0-rc.7indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiterindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 23 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 11 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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