Public record
Software health reportschema 0.14.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-19 09:09 UTC

micronaut-projects / micronaut-graphql

A repository for Micronaut and GraphQL integrations

Java · GroovyApache-2.0★ 88 stars⑂ 47 forkssince Dec 2018View on GitHub ↗

micronaut-projects/micronaut-graphql holds a health index of 88 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (83/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (64/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

88
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

88
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 74 is calibrated to 88 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

785 followers140 public repossince Feb 2018

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?

83Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
11.8/36Commit cadence17/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume121 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year121
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year17

Release discipline

93Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases47 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 4 days ago
19.8/27Release cadencea release every ~86 days
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count47
latest_release_tagv5.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases86

Community & Adoption

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

64Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
31.5/60Stars88 stars
13.9/25Forks47 forks
6.5/15Watchers16 watchers
Inputs used
forks47
stars88
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
7.2/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateyes
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?

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.7/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth29 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled29
top_contributor_share0.303
How it's scored
34.6/42Issue resolution82% of issues closed
22.3/30PR acceptance502/675 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs502
open_issues13
closed_issues61
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.824
closed_unmerged_prs173
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
20.8/25Owner reach785 followers of micronaut-projects
25/25Track record140 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers785
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginmicronaut-projects
public_repos140
account_age_days3,064
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows7 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests20 out of 21 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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicscommunity-driven
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?

76Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
5/5Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
1.5/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
7.5/7.5Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate7.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

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
45/45Agent instructions.github/instructions/coding.instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files.github/instructions/coding.instructions.md, .github/instructions/docs.instructions.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,161
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingJava (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/78 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes18,747
source_files_sampled78
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)docs-examples/hello-world-groovy/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, docs-examples/hello-world-java/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, docs-examples/hello-world-kotlin/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/chat/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/jwt-security/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/todo-java-tools/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, graphql/src/test/resources/schema.graphqls, graphql/src/test/resources/websocket.graphql, test-suite-graal/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesdocs-examples/hello-world-groovy/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, docs-examples/hello-world-java/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, docs-examples/hello-world-kotlin/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/chat/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/jwt-security/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, examples/todo-java-tools/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls, graphql/src/test/resources/schema.graphqls, graphql/src/test/resources/websocket.graphql, test-suite-graal/src/main/resources/schema.graphqls
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

88GitHub stars
29contributors
121commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
47releases
2bus factor
13open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.6 / 10
7.6aggregate

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 · 2026-07-19 09:08 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during GetBranch(5.0.x): error during branchesHandler.query: 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-Tests20 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 9/18 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
10Contributorsproject has 14 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
10Pinned-Dependenciesall dependencies are pinned
3SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 3
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
10Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
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 v0.14.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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