Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-20 01:21 UTC

open-feature / flagd-testbed

Shared test harness for flagd SDK testing, with Gherkin tests

Gherkin · GoNo license detected★ 5 stars⑂ 14 forkssince Jul 2022View on GitHub ↗

open-feature/flagd-testbed holds a health index of 83 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (87/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (44/100). It was last updated today. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

83
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.

83
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 70 is calibrated to 83 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

OpenFeatureOrganization · verified domain
1,537 followers60 public repossince Feb 2022

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?

87Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
14.5/36Commit cadence21/52 weeks with commits
17.6/18Commit volume90 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained24 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year90
human_commit_share0.86
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year21

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 31 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~14.3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.10.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release31
mean_days_between_releases14.3
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?

44Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
9.8/60Stars5 stars
9.3/25Forks14 forks
4.3/15Watchers7 watchers
Inputs used
forks14
stars5
watchers7
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseno
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

78Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.8/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 30% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth16 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled16
top_contributor_share0.296
How it's scored
30.3/42Issue resolution72% of issues closed
27.3/30PR acceptance335/368 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs335
open_issues12
closed_issues31
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.721
closed_unmerged_prs33
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
20/20Verified domain
22.9/25Owner reach1,537 followers of open-feature
22.2/25Track record60 public repos, account ~4 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,537
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginopen-feature
public_repos60
account_age_days1,681

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

63Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://openfeature.dev
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://openfeature.dev
docs_sitehttps://openfeature.dev
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

71Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-ReviewFound 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
7.5/7.5Maintained24 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
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-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities24 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate6.4
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 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
advisories26
affected_packages7
assessed_packages42
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 4, moderate 1, unknown 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 42 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.

74Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsagents.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history86 of 86 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesagents.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes11,151
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstraplaunchpad/go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice12 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance14 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum, package-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.12
toolchain_manifestslaunchpad/go.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.14
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codeGherkin without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes0/6 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGherkin
largest_source_bytes3,915
source_files_sampled6
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

5GitHub stars
16contributors
90commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
12open issues
Go, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch go package 'openfeature.com/flagd-testbed/launchpad' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14 ⇿
0Stars
14Forks
97Releases

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.

03581013151412022-102024-092026-07
Major 3Minor 30Patch 64

Each point covers 4 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.4 / 10
6.4aggregate

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 · 2026-09-20 01:20 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
10CI-Tests29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 12/16 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
10Maintained24 commit(s) and 7 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities24 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.10.1launchpad/go.mod
All dependencies 42

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 41 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogithub.com/fsnotify/fsnotifyv1.10.1direct
Gogolang.org/x/sysv0.13.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/aspromise1.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/base641.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/codegen2.0.4indirect
npm@protobufjs/eventemitter1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/fetch1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/float1.0.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/inquire1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/path1.1.2indirect
npm@protobufjs/pool1.1.0indirect
npm@protobufjs/utf81.1.0indirect
npm@types/long4.0.2indirect
npm@types/node18.11.18indirect
npm@types/uuid3.4.10indirect
npmbalanced-match1.0.2indirect
npmbrace-expansion1.1.11indirect
npmbuffer-from1.1.2indirect
npmcommander11.0.0indirect
npmcommander4.1.1indirect
npmconcat-map0.0.1indirect
npmcore-js3.33.1indirect
npmcucumber-messages8.0.0indirect
npmfs.realpath1.0.0indirect
npmgherkin9.0.0indirect
npmgherkin-lint4.2.4indirect
npmglob7.1.6indirect
npminflight1.0.6indirect
npminherits2.0.4indirect
npmlodash4.17.21indirect
npmlong4.0.0indirect
npmminimatch3.1.2indirect
npmonce1.4.0indirect
npmpath-is-absolute1.0.1indirect
npmprotobufjs6.11.3indirect
npmsax1.2.4indirect
npmsource-map0.6.1indirect
npmsource-map-support0.5.21indirect
npmstrip-json-comments3.0.1indirect
npmuuid3.4.0indirect
npmwrappy1.0.2indirect
npmxml-js1.6.11indirect
Dependency advisories 7

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 42 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 7 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
protobufjs6.11.3indirectcritical128.6.0
brace-expansion1.1.11indirecthigh55.0.9
lodash4.17.21indirecthigh34.18.0
minimatch3.1.2indirecthigh310.2.3
uuid3.4.0indirecthigh113.0.1
@protobufjs/utf81.1.0indirectmoderate18.0.2
golang.org/x/sysv0.13.0indirectunknown10.44.0

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.