Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-30 07:31 UTC

lukebemishprojects / OpenSesame

A tool for generating convenient accessors to break encapsulation in JVM languages

Java · GroovyBSD-3-Clause★ 14 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Aug 2023View on GitHub ↗
#groovy#java

lukebemishprojects/OpenSesame holds a health index of 48 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on Vitality (66/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (29/100). It was last updated 25 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

48
overall / 100
Weak

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.

48
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 49 is calibrated to 48 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Luke Bemish's ProjectsOrganization
1 follower40 public repossince Sep 2023

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?

66Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

52Moderate
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recency — last push 25 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
13/18Commit volume — 27 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year27
human_commit_share0.82
days_since_last_push25
active_weeks_last_year8

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 53 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 25 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~37.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count53
latest_release_tag0.8.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release25
mean_days_between_releases37.9
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?

33At Risk · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

18Critical
How it's scored
18.1/60Stars — 14 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars14
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-3-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

29At Risk · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

20At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
1.4/13.5Contributor breadth — 1 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled1
top_contributor_share1

Issue & PR responsiveness

18Critical
How it's scored
12/42Issue resolution — 29% of issues closed
3.4/30PR acceptance — 5/44 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs5
open_issues5
closed_issues2
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.286
closed_unmerged_prs39
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.

Ownership & stewardship

50Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
2.2/25Owner reach — 1 followers of lukebemishprojects
17.7/25Track record — 40 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers1
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginlukebemishprojects
public_repos40
account_age_days1,091

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

65Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

68Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 5 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsgroovy, java
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

46Weak
How it's scored
6/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. 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
advisories3
affected_packages2
assessed_packages62
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitymoderate 2
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 62 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

43Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

3Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
2.6/40Legible commit history — 4 of 82 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.049
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

51Moderate
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — build-logic/build.gradle, build.gradle, compile/build.gradle (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
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild-logic/build.gradle, build.gradle, compile/build.gradle, core/build.gradle, fabric/build.gradle, groovy/build.gradle, javac/build.gradle, mixin/build.gradle, natives/build.gradle, plugin/core/build.gradle, plugin/loom/build.gradle, testplugin/build.gradle, testplugin/javac/build.gradle, testplugin/loom/build.gradle, testplugin/loom/exec-intermediary/build.gradle, testplugin/loom/exec-named/build.gradle, testplugin/loom/testmod/build.gradle, testtargets/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/101 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes54,747
source_files_sampled101
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

14GitHub stars
1contributors
27commits, last 12 months
25days since last push
53releases
1bus factor
5open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.6 / 10
4.6aggregate

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-08-30 07:30 UTC

8Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained6 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 62

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 62 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavencom.google.auto.service:auto-service1.0.1indirect
Mavencom.google.auto.service:auto-service-annotations1.0.1indirect
Mavencom.google.auto:auto-common1.2indirect
Mavencom.google.code.findbugs:jsr3053.0.2indirect
Mavencom.google.errorprone:error_prone_annotations2.7.1indirect
Mavencom.google.guava:failureaccess1.0.1indirect
Mavencom.google.guava:guava31.0.1-jreindirect
Mavencom.google.guava:listenablefuture9999.0-empty-to-avoid-conflict-with-guavaindirect
Mavencom.google.j2objc:j2objc-annotations1.3indirect
Mavencom.gradle.publish:plugin-publish-plugin1.3.1indirect
Mavencom.gradle:develocity-gradle-plugin4.0.1indirect
Mavencom.squareup.okhttp3:okhttp4.12.0indirect
Mavencom.squareup.okio:okio3.6.0indirect
Mavencom.squareup.okio:okio-jvm3.6.0indirect
Mavencommons-codec:commons-codec1.17.1indirect
Mavencommons-io:commons-io2.16.1indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish.javac-post-processor:plugin0.1.10indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish.testingutils:framework0.1.13indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:central-portal-publishing0.1.7indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:conventions0.2.0-beta.3indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:javac-post-processor0.1.10indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:managedversioning2.0.0-beta.7indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:testingutils0.1.13indirect
Mavendev.lukebemish:zig-gradle0.1.0indirect
Mavennet.fabricmc:fabric-loader0.15.4indirect
Mavennet.fabricmc:fabric-loom1.5.6indirect
Mavennet.fabricmc:tiny-remapper0.10.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-compress1.27.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-lang33.16.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-text1.10.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.groovy:groovy4.0.18indirect
Mavenorg.apache.groovy:groovy-bom4.0.18indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven:maven-model3.6.3indirect
Mavenorg.apiguardian:apiguardian-api1.1.2indirect
Mavenorg.checkerframework:checker-qual3.12.0indirect
Mavenorg.gradle.toolchains:foojay-resolver1.0.0indirect
Mavenorg.gradle:github-dependency-graph-gradle-plugin1.4.0indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-stdlib1.9.10indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-stdlib-common1.9.10indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-stdlib-jdk71.9.10indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-stdlib-jdk81.9.10indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains:annotations13.0indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains:annotations24.0.1indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains:annotations26.0.2indirect
Mavenorg.jspecify:jspecify1.0.0indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api5.13.1indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api5.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-engine5.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-commons1.13.1indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-commons1.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-engine1.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-launcher1.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit.platform:junit-platform-reporting1.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom5.13.1indirect
Mavenorg.junit:junit-bom5.13.3indirect
Mavenorg.opentest4j.reporting:open-test-reporting-tooling-spi0.2.3indirect
Mavenorg.opentest4j:opentest4j1.3.0indirect
Mavenorg.ow2.asm:asm9.9.1indirect
Mavenorg.ow2.asm:asm-commons9.9.1indirect
Mavenorg.ow2.asm:asm-tree9.9.1indirect
Mavenorg.spongepowered:mixin0.8.5indirect
Mavenorg.tukaani:xz1.10indirect
Dependency advisories 2

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 62 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
com.google.guava:guava31.0.1-jreindirectmoderate232.0.0-android
org.apache.commons:commons-lang33.16.0indirectmoderate13.18.0

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.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with lukebemishprojects/OpenSesame. Read them side by side →

95micronaut-projects/micronaut-coreMicronaut Application FrameworkExceptional94GradleUp/shadowGradle plugin for creating fat/uber JARs, transforming files, relocating packages, and optimizing applications with R8/ProGuard. The Gradle counterpart to Maven Shade Plugin.Exceptional94assertj/assertjFluent testing assertions for Java and the JVMExceptional92diffplug/spotlessKeep your code spotlessExcellent93com-lihaoyi/millA better build tool for Java, Scala and Kotlin: Simpler than Maven, easier than Gradle, with 3-7x faster dev workflows than other JVM build toolsExceptional99spring-projects/spring-securitySpring SecurityExceptional

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.