Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 10:35 UTC

mcarleio / konvert

Clean, type- and null-safe Kotlin mapping code generation at compile-time with Java interop

KotlinApache-2.0★ 165 stars⑂ 17 forkssince Mar 2023View on GitHub ↗

mcarleio/konvert holds a health index of 65 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (79/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (40/100). It was last updated 36 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

MarcelPersonal account
8 followers16 public repossince Sep 2017INFORM GmbH

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

62Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 36 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence — 9/52 weeks with commits
12.6/18Commit volume — 24 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year24
human_commit_share0.8
days_since_last_push36
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 34 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 86 days ago
19.8/27Release cadence — a release every ~50.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count34
latest_release_tagv4.5.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release86
mean_days_between_releases50.9
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?

59Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
35.9/60Stars — 165 stars
10/25Forks — 17 forks
2.7/15Watchers — 4 watchers
Inputs used
forks17
stars165
watchers4
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

40Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
1.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 94% of commits
10.8/13.5Contributor breadth — 8 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled8
top_contributor_share0.941
How it's scored
31/42Issue resolution — 74% of issues closed
10.7/30PR acceptance — 58/163 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs58
open_issues15
closed_issues42
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.737
closed_unmerged_prs105
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
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
6.9/25Owner reach — 8 followers of mcarleio
21/25Track record — 16 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers8
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmcarleio
public_repos16
account_age_days3,317
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

79Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 4 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://mcarleio.github.io/konvert/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscodegeneration, kotlin, kotlin-symbol-processing, mapping, java-interop, kotlin-symbol-processor, ksp, no-reflection, type-safe
has_wikino
homepagehttps://mcarleio.github.io/konvert/
docs_sitehttps://mcarleio.github.io/konvert/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

64Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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 — 3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
2.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 12 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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
advisories12
affected_packages3
assessed_packages55
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 1, moderate 1, low 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 55 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.

73Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://kotlinlang.org/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 78 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://kotlinlang.org/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.975
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — annotations/build.gradle.kts, api/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Kotlin (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice — 1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 20 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesGemfile.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifestsannotations/build.gradle.kts, api/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, buildSrc/build.gradle.kts, converter-api/build.gradle.kts, converter/build.gradle.kts, docs/build.gradle.kts, example/build.gradle.kts, example/pom.xml, injectors/anvil-annotations/build.gradle.kts, injectors/anvil-injector/build.gradle.kts, injectors/cdi-annotations/build.gradle.kts, injectors/cdi-injector/build.gradle.kts, injectors/koin-annotations/build.gradle.kts, injectors/koin-injector/build.gradle.kts, injectors/spring-annotations/build.gradle.kts, injectors/spring-injector/build.gradle.kts, plugin-api/build.gradle.kts, processor/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.2
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/169 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes57,108
source_files_sampled169
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — example
Inputs used
example_dirsexample
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

165GitHub stars
8contributors
24commits, last 12 months
36days since last push
34releases
1bus factor
15open issues
Maven, 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 ★ / 17 ⇿
0Stars
17Forks
28Releases

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.

0481216201712023-042024-122026-08
Major 3Minor 13Patch 12

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-10-19 10:35 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
9CI-Tests11 out of 12 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained3 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 5
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities12 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 55

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 55 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenio.mcarle:konvert0.1.0-SNAPSHOTindirect
Mavenio.mcarle:konvert-api0.1.0-SNAPSHOTindirect
Mavenio.mcarle:konvert-spring-annotations0.1.0-SNAPSHOTindirect
Mavenio.mcarle:konvert-spring-injector0.1.0-SNAPSHOTindirect
Mavenio.mcarle:ksp-maven-plugin2.3.5-1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin3.5.4indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin3.6.1indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-maven-plugin2.3.10indirect
Mavenorg.jetbrains.kotlin:kotlin-stdlib-jdk82.3.10indirect
Mavenorg.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api6.0.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsasciidoctor2.0.23indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal4.1.2indirect
RubyGemscolorator1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsconcurrent-ruby1.3.6indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.5indirect
RubyGemsem-websocket0.5.3indirect
RubyGemseventmachine1.2.7indirect
RubyGemsffi1.17.4indirect
RubyGemsforwardable-extended2.6.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-protobuf4.34.1indirect
RubyGemshttp_parser.rb0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsi18n1.14.8indirect
RubyGemsjekyll4.4.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-asciidoc3.0.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-include-cache0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-sass-converter3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-seo-tag2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-target-blank2.0.2indirect
RubyGemsjekyll-watch2.2.1indirect
RubyGemsjson2.19.5indirect
RubyGemsjust-the-docs0.12.0indirect
RubyGemskramdown2.5.2indirect
RubyGemskramdown-parser-gfm1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsliquid4.0.4indirect
RubyGemslisten3.10.0indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmercenary0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnokogiri1.19.3indirect
RubyGemspathutil0.16.2indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix7.0.5indirect
RubyGemsracc1.8.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-fsevent0.11.2indirect
RubyGemsrb-inotify0.11.1indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge4.7.0indirect
RubyGemssafe_yaml1.0.5indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.99.0indirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.99.0-arm-linux-gnueabihfindirect
RubyGemssass-embedded1.99.0-arm-linux-musleabihfindirect
RubyGemsterminal-table3.0.2indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width2.6.0indirect
RubyGemswebrick1.9.2indirect
Dependency advisories 3

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 55 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 3 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
concurrent-ruby1.3.6indirecthigh31.3.7
nokogiri1.19.3indirectmoderate81.19.4
json2.19.5indirectlow12.19.9

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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