Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 17:52 UTC

mgarin / weblaf

WebLaF is a fully open-source Look & Feel and component library written in pure Java for cross-platform desktop Swing applications.

JavaGPL-3.0★ 1,174 stars⑂ 231 forkssince Jun 2013View on GitHub ↗

KindLibraryhow this is determined

#java #swing #look-and-feel #weblaf #skin #ui #components #swing-components #cross-platform

mgarin/weblaf holds a health index of 8 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. It scores highest on Community & Adoption (75/100) and lowest on Vitality (17/100). It was last updated 748 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

overall / 100

Critical

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.

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)

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 42 is calibrated to 38 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02). High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At Risk ceiling of 34.

Ownership

MiklePersonal account

71 followers7 public repossince Sep 2012ALEE Software

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

Package ecosystems

Registry	Package	Version	Downloads / mo	Versions	Last publish
Maven	com.weblookandfeel:weblaf-parent	1.2.14	-	7	1028 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

17Critical · 21% of overall

Development activity

1Critical

How it's scored

0/36	Push recency — last push 748 days ago
0/36	Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18	Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

commits_last_year	0
human_commit_share	—
days_since_last_push	748
active_weeks_last_year	0

Release discipline

40Weak

How it's scored

27/27	Ships releases — 17 releases published
0/36	Release recency — latest release 2,222 days ago
12.6/27	Release cadence — a release every ~271 days
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.

Inputs used

releases_count	17
latest_release_tag	v1.2.13
releases_from_tags	no
days_since_latest_release	2,222
mean_days_between_releases	271

Community & Adoption

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

75Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

80Excellent

How it's scored

49.8/60	Stars — 1,174 stars
19.7/25	Forks — 231 forks
10.3/15	Watchers — 72 watchers

Inputs used

forks	231
stars	1,174
watchers	72
growth_state	unverified
growth_factor_pct	100
growth_unverified_reason	no_history

Community health

70Good

How it's scored

22.5/22.5	README
22.5/22.5	License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18	CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5	Code of conduct
0/7.2	Issue template
0/6.3	PR template

Inputs used

has_readme	yes
has_license	yes
readme_badges	—
has_contributing	yes
has_issue_template	no
has_code_of_conduct	no
readme_badge_services	—
has_pull_request_template	no

Sustainability & Governance

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

50Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

31At Risk

How it's scored

9/54	Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
2.9/22.5	Commit distribution — top contributor authored 87% of commits
13.5/13.5	Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
6/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6

Inputs used

bus_factor	1
contributors_sampled	18
top_contributor_share	0.873

Issue & PR responsiveness

56Moderate

How it's scored

28.3/42	Issue resolution — 67% of issues closed
20/30	PR acceptance — 70/105 decided PRs merged
0/13	Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15	OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

merged_prs	70
open_issues	198
closed_issues	410
prs_merged_7d	—
prs_decided_7d	—
prs_merged_30d	—
prs_decided_30d	—
issue_closed_ratio	0.674
closed_unmerged_prs	35
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.

Ownership & stewardship

52Moderate

How it's scored

10/30	Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20	Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.4/25	Owner reach — 71 followers of mgarin
18.6/25	Track record — 7 public repos, account ~13 yr old

Inputs used

followers	71
owner_type	User
is_verified	—
owner_login	mgarin
public_repos	7
account_age_days	5,054

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

69Good

How it's scored

25/25	Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on maven
4/35	Publish recency — latest publish 1,028 days ago
20/20	Version history — 7 published versions
20/20	Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked

Inputs used

packages	com.weblookandfeel:weblaf-parent
ecosystems	maven
any_deprecated	no
min_days_since_publish	1,028

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

44Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk

How it's scored

0/24	CI workflows
24/24	Tests present
0/16	Linter config
0/9.6	Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4	.editorconfig
0/20	OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0

Inputs used

has_ci	no
has_tests	yes
has_editorconfig	no
has_linter_config	no
has_precommit_config	no

Documentation

75Good

How it's scored

30/30	README
0/25	Documentation directory
15/15	Documentation / homepage site — http://weblookandfeel.com
10/10	Repository description
10/10	Topics — 9 topics
10/10	Wiki

Inputs used

topics	java, swing, look-and-feel, weblaf, skin, ui, components, swing-components, cross-platform
has_wiki	yes
homepage	http://weblookandfeel.com
docs_site	http://weblookandfeel.com
has_readme	yes
has_docs_dir	no
has_description	yes

Security

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

22At Risk · 16% of overall

Security posture

3Critical

Jurisdiction risk alert

High-risk jurisdiction exposure detected

1 contributor organization profilesRussia1 software.redFlag.role.ownerRussia2 top contributor profilesRussia

Based on self-published public profile locations. This governance signal does not determine nationality, citizenship, intent, sanctions status, or individual trustworthiness.

How jurisdiction exposure is assessed

How it's scored

0/7.5	Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5	Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5	CI-Tests — 0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5	CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5	Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5	Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10	Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5	Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5	Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5	License — license file detected
0/7.5	Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Packaging — no data
0/5	Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5	SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5	Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5	Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5	Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5	Vulnerabilities — 33 existing vulnerabilities detected

Inputs used

source	openssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated	14
scorecard_version	v5.5.0
checks_inconclusive	4
scorecard_aggregate	1.5
high_risk_jurisdiction_cap	34
high_risk_jurisdiction_multiplier	20
security_posture_after_multiplier	3
security_posture_before_jurisdiction	15

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 20% multiplier and gives Security posture an At risk ceiling of 34.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional

How it's scored

35/35	Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25	Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40	No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date

Inputs used

source	osv
advisories	68
affected_packages	2
assessed_packages	23
unassessed_packages	1
affected_by_severity	high 2
direct_affected_packages	0

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. 1 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

Agent context & guidance

1Critical

How it's scored

0/45	Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15	Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40	Legible commit history — no data

Inputs used

has_llms_txt	no
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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

46Weak

How it's scored

0/18	One-command bootstrap
22/22	Automated tests
0/11	Lint / format config
11/11	Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10	Reproducible environment
0/10	Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8	Automated maintenance — no data
0/10	OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data

Inputs used

has_nix	no
has_tests	yes
lockfiles	—
has_dockerfile	no
typed_language	yes
bootstrap_files	—
has_devcontainer	no
has_linter_config	no
typecheck_configs	—
agent_commit_share	—
toolchain_manifests	—
dependency_bot_commit_share	—

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance, OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional

How it's scored

45/45	Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.7/55	Manageable file sizes — 12/2,053 source files over 60KB

Inputs used

primary_language	Java
largest_source_bytes	105,475
source_files_sampled	2,053
oversized_source_files	12

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional

How it's scored

0/40	API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20	MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40	Runnable examples — example, examples, sample

Inputs used

example_dirs	example, examples, sample
has_mcp_signal	no
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

1,174GitHub stars

18contributors

0commits, last 12 months

748days since last push

17releases

1bus factor

198open issues

Mavenpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 1.5 / 10

1.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 17:52 UTC

0	Binary-Artifacts	binaries present in source code
0	Branch-Protection	branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0	CI-Tests	0 out of 2 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0	CII-Best-Practices	no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0	Code-Review	Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6	Contributors	project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/a	Dangerous-Workflow	no workflows found
10	Dependency-Update-Tool	update tool detected
0	Fuzzing	project is not fuzzed
10	License	license file detected
0	Maintained	0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/a	Packaging	packaging workflow not detected
n/a	Pinned-Dependencies	no dependencies found
0	SAST	SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0	Security-Policy	security policy file not detected
0	Signed-Releases	Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
n/a	Token-Permissions	No tokens found
0	Vulnerabilities	33 existing vulnerabilities detected

All dependencies 24

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 24 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

Registry	Package	Version	Relation
Maven	com.fifesoft:rsyntaxtextarea	`2.6.1`	indirect
Maven	com.mortennobel:java-image-scaling	`0.8.5`	indirect
Maven	com.mortennobel:java-image-scaling	`0.8.6`	indirect
Maven	com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream	`1.4.12`	indirect
Maven	com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream	`1.4.7`	indirect
Maven	com.weblookandfeel:svg-salamander	`1.1.2.2`	indirect
Maven	junit:junit	`4.13.1`	indirect
Maven	net.htmlparser.jericho:jericho-html	`3.3`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin	`2.6`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin	`3.1`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin	`3.5.1`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-gpg-plugin	`1.6`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin	`—`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin	`3.0.2`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin	`2.10.3`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-resources-plugin	`3.0.1`	indirect
Maven	org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin	`3.0.0`	indirect
Maven	org.slf4j:slf4j-api	`1.7.27`	indirect
Maven	org.slf4j:slf4j-api	`1.7.7`	indirect
Maven	org.slf4j:slf4j-simple	`1.7.27`	indirect
Maven	org.slf4j:slf4j-simple	`1.7.7`	indirect
Maven	org.sonatype.plugins:nexus-staging-maven-plugin	`1.6.7`	indirect
Maven	xmlpull:xmlpull	`1.1.3.1`	indirect
Maven	xpp3:xpp3_min	`1.1.4c`	indirect

Dependency advisories 2

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: 2 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 1 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

Package	Version	Relation	Severity	Advisories	Fixed in
com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream	`1.4.12`	indirect	high	33	`1.4.21`
com.thoughtworks.xstream:xstream	`1.4.7`	indirect	high	35	`1.4.21`

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.

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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

Software health index

Score profile

Ownership

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Key facts

More detail

Feedback

Related records