Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-19 10:41 UTC

nordicsemi / Kotlin-BLE-Library

KotlinBSD-3-Clause★ 530 stars⑂ 59 forkssince Jul 2023View on GitHub ↗
KindMobile applicationhow this is determined

nordicsemi/Kotlin-BLE-Library holds a health index of 73 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (93/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (51/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

73
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.

73
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 64 is calibrated to 73 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

nordicsemiOrganization
113 followers70 public repossince Aug 2025

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?

93Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

88Excellent
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
24.2/36Commit cadence — 35/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 574 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year574
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year35

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 51 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count51
latest_release_tag2.0.0-beta07
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases22.4
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?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
44.2/60Stars — 530 stars
14.7/25Forks — 59 forks
5/15Watchers — 9 watchers
Inputs used
forks59
stars530
watchers9
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_badges1
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?

54Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

40Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 65% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 13 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled13
top_contributor_share0.654

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
28.6/42Issue resolution — 68% of issues closed
28.6/30PR acceptance — 297/311 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs297
open_issues38
closed_issues81
prs_merged_7d50
prs_decided_7d52
prs_merged_30d54
prs_decided_30d56
issue_closed_ratio0.681
closed_unmerged_prs14
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

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
14.8/25Owner reach — 113 followers of nordicsemi
15.3/25Track record — 70 public repos, account ~1 yr old
Inputs used
followers113
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginnordicsemi
public_repos70
account_age_days415

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

51Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

48Weak
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

59Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

49Weak
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
1.5/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities — 1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.9
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
advisories1
affected_packages1
assessed_packages98
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severityhigh 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 98 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.

72Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 90 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.909
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

74Good
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — advertiser-android-mock/build.gradle.kts, advertiser-android/build.gradle.kts, advertiser-core-android/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
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 48 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 1 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_share0.48
toolchain_manifestsadvertiser-android-mock/build.gradle.kts, advertiser-android/build.gradle.kts, advertiser-core-android/build.gradle.kts, advertiser-core/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, client-android-mock/build.gradle.kts, client-android/build.gradle.kts, client-core-android/build.gradle.kts, client-core-mock/build.gradle.kts, client-core/build.gradle.kts, core-android/build.gradle.kts, core-mock/build.gradle.kts, core/build.gradle.kts, environment-android-compose/build.gradle.kts, environment-android-mock/build.gradle.kts, environment-android/build.gradle.kts, profile/build.gradle.kts, sample/build.gradle.kts, server-android-mock/build.gradle.kts, server-android/build.gradle.kts, server-core-android/build.gradle.kts, server-core/build.gradle.kts, test/build.gradle.kts
dependency_bot_commit_share0.01

Code legibility for models

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Kotlin (statically typed)
54.5/55Manageable file sizes — 3/313 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageKotlin
largest_source_bytes692,091
source_files_sampled313
oversized_source_files3

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
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 — sample
Inputs used
example_dirssample
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

530GitHub stars
13contributors
574commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
51releases
1bus factor
38open 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 ★ / 59 ⇿
0Stars
59Forks
43Releases

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.

01020304050605822023-102025-032026-09
Major 0Minor 3Patch 16

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.9 / 10
4.9aggregate

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 10:41 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
2Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 14 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/13 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 3 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 10
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
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
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
RubyGemsfastlane—Gemfile
All dependencies 98

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 97 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
RubyGemsfastlane2.241.1direct
RubyGemsabbrev0.1.2indirect
RubyGemsaddressable2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsartifactory3.0.17indirect
RubyGemsatomos0.1.3indirect
RubyGemsaws-eventstream1.4.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-partitions1.1293.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-core3.257.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-kms1.132.0indirect
RubyGemsaws-sdk-s31.233.2indirect
RubyGemsaws-sigv41.12.1indirect
RubyGemsbabosa1.0.4indirect
RubyGemsbase640.3.0indirect
RubyGemsbenchmark0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsbigdecimal1.4.4indirect
RubyGemsCFPropertyList3.0.8indirect
RubyGemscgi0.5.2indirect
RubyGemsclaide1.1.0indirect
RubyGemscolored1.2indirect
RubyGemscolored23.1.2indirect
RubyGemscommander4.6.0indirect
RubyGemscsv3.3.6indirect
RubyGemsdeclarative0.0.20indirect
RubyGemsdigest-crc0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsdomain_name0.6.20260921indirect
RubyGemsdotenv2.8.1indirect
RubyGemsemoji_regex3.2.3indirect
RubyGemserb4.0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsexcon1.7.3indirect
RubyGemsfaraday2.14.4indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-cookie_jar0.0.8indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-follow_redirects0.5.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-multipart1.2.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-net_http2.1.0indirect
RubyGemsfaraday-retry2.4.0indirect
RubyGemsfastimage2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsfastlane-sirp1.1.0indirect
RubyGemsgh_inspector1.1.3indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-androidpublisher_v30.109.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-core0.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-iamcredentials_v10.28.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-playcustomapp_v10.18.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-apis-storage_v10.68.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-core1.9.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-env2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-errors1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-cloud-storage1.62.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogle-logging-utils0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsgoogleauth1.17.5indirect
RubyGemshighline2.0.3indirect
RubyGemshttp-cookie1.1.6indirect
RubyGemshttpclient2.9.0indirect
RubyGemsio-console0.9.4indirect
RubyGemsirb1.18.0indirect
RubyGemsjmespath1.6.2indirect
RubyGemsjson2.21.2indirect
RubyGemsjwt2.10.3indirect
RubyGemslogger1.7.0indirect
RubyGemsmini_magick4.13.2indirect
RubyGemsmini_mime1.1.5indirect
RubyGemsmulti_json1.21.2indirect
RubyGemsmultipart-post2.4.1indirect
RubyGemsmutex_m0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnanaimo0.4.0indirect
RubyGemsnaturally2.3.0indirect
RubyGemsnkf0.3.0indirect
RubyGemsoptparse0.8.1indirect
RubyGemsos1.1.4indirect
RubyGemsostruct0.6.3indirect
RubyGemsplist3.7.2indirect
RubyGemspp0.6.4indirect
RubyGemsprettyprint0.2.1indirect
RubyGemsprism1.9.0indirect
RubyGemspstore0.2.1indirect
RubyGemspublic_suffix5.1.1indirect
RubyGemsrake13.4.2indirect
RubyGemsrdoc4.3.0indirect
RubyGemsreline0.7.0indirect
RubyGemsrepresentable3.3.1indirect
RubyGemsretriable3.8.0indirect
RubyGemsrexml3.4.4indirect
RubyGemsrouge3.28.0indirect
RubyGemsrubyzip3.7.0indirect
RubyGemssecurity0.3.0indirect
RubyGemssignet0.22.1indirect
RubyGemssimctl1.6.10indirect
RubyGemsterminal-notifier3.1.0indirect
RubyGemsterminal-table4.0.0indirect
RubyGemstrailblazer-option0.1.2indirect
RubyGemstty-cursor0.7.1indirect
RubyGemstty-screen0.8.2indirect
RubyGemstty-spinner0.9.3indirect
RubyGemsuber0.1.0indirect
RubyGemsunicode-display_width1.8.0indirect
RubyGemsword_wrap1.0.0indirect
RubyGemsxcodeproj1.28.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty0.4.1indirect
RubyGemsxcpretty-travis-formatter1.0.1indirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 98 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
rdoc4.3.0indirecthigh16.3.1

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 nordicsemi/Kotlin-BLE-Library. Read them side by side →

99stripe/stripe-react-nativeReact Native library for Stripe.Exceptional98Automattic/wp-calypsoThe JavaScript and API powered WordPress.comExceptional98svix/svix-webhooksThe open source and enterprise-ready webhooks service 🦀Exceptional98mattermost/mattermost-mobileNext generation iOS and Android apps for Mattermost in React NativeExceptional98elastic/logstashLogstash - transport and process your logs, events, or other dataExceptional98software-mansion/react-native-screensNative navigation primitives for your React Native app.Exceptional

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.