Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-15 00:27 UTC

mapbox / mapbox-directions-swift

Traffic-aware directions and map matching in Swift on iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, and Linux

SwiftISC★ 205 stars⑂ 98 forkssince Dec 2014View on GitHub ↗

mapbox/mapbox-directions-swift holds a health index of 78 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (82/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (51/100). It was last updated 46 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

78
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.

78
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 67 is calibrated to 78 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

MapboxOrganization
2,776 followers866 public repossince Feb 2011

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?

55Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 46 days ago
4.8/36Commit cadence7/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume11 commits in the last year
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share0.95
days_since_last_push46
active_weeks_last_year7
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 57 days ago
12.6/27Release cadencea release every ~133.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.14.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases133.8
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?

75Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
37.5/60Stars205 stars
16.6/25Forks98 forks
11.6/15Watchers122 watchers
Inputs used
forks98
stars205
watchers122
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (ISC)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicescircleci.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

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
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 47% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth40 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled40
top_contributor_share0.472
How it's scored
36.7/42Issue resolution87% of issues closed
27.8/30PR acceptance553/596 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
13.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 18/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
merged_prs553
open_issues32
closed_issues221
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.874
closed_unmerged_prs43
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
24.8/25Owner reach2,776 followers of mapbox
25/25Track record866 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,776
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmapbox
public_repos866
account_age_days5,670
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

58Moderate · 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
12/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.mapbox.com/navigation/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics15 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdirections, osrm, swift, ios, macos, tvos, watchos, openstreetmap, traffic, routing, mapbox-directions, map-matching, navigation, valhalla, linux
has_wikino
homepagehttps://www.mapbox.com/navigation/
docs_sitehttps://www.mapbox.com/navigation/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

68Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
6/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
1.5/2.5CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 18/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
3/7.5Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories10
affected_packages5
assessed_packages56
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 4, moderate 1
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 56 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.

51Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
31.4/40Legible commit history56 of 95 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.589
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingSwift (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeSwift (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes1/121 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageSwift
largest_source_bytes95,786
source_files_sampled121
oversized_source_files1

Key facts

205GitHub stars
40contributors
11commits, last 12 months
46days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
32open issues
RubyGemspackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 98 ⇿
0Stars
98Forks
98Releases

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.

0204060801008322015-102020-092025-07
Major 2Minor 23Patch 15

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.0 / 10
6.0aggregate

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 · 2026-08-15 00:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
8Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
6CI-Tests12 out of 19 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 6
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
9Code-ReviewFound 18/19 approved changesets -- score normalized to 9
10Contributorsproject has 24 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
4Maintained5 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 4
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
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities10 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsjazzy~> 0.14Gemfile
RubyGemsxcprettyGemfile
All dependencies 56

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 54 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsjazzy0.15.3direct
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1direct
RubyGemsactivesupport7.1.5.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.8.7indirect
RubyGemsalgoliasearch1.27.5indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.7indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods1.16.2indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-core1.16.2indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-deintegrate1.0.5indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-downloader2.1indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-plugins1.0.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-search1.0.1indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-trunk1.6.0indirect
RubyGemscocoapods-try1.2.0indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.5indirect
RubyGemsconnection_pool2.5.4indirect
RubyGemsdrb2.2.3indirect
RubyGemsescape0.0.4indirect
RubyGemsethon0.15.0indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.2indirect
RubyGemsfourflusher2.3.1indirect
RubyGemsfuzzy_match2.0.4indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.7indirect
RubyGemsjson2.15.1indirect
RubyGemsliferaft0.0.6indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_portile22.8.9indirect
RubyGemsminitest5.26.0indirect
RubyGemsmolinillo0.8.0indirect
RubyGemsmustache1.1.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnap1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsnetrc0.11.0indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.2.0indirect
RubyGemsopen41.3.4indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix4.0.7indirect
RubyGemsredcarpet3.6.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsruby-macho2.5.1indirect
RubyGemssassc2.4.0indirect
RubyGemssecurerandom0.3.2indirect
RubyGemssqlite31.7.3indirect
RubyGemstyphoeus1.5.0indirect
RubyGemstzinfo2.0.6indirect
RubyGemsxcinvoke0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.27.0indirect
Dependency advisories 5

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 56 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
activesupport7.1.5.2indirecthigh38.1.2.1
addressable2.8.7indirecthigh12.9.0
concurrent-ruby1.3.5indirecthigh31.3.7
json2.15.1indirecthigh22.19.9
sqlite31.7.3indirectmoderate12.9.5

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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