# openhab/openhab2-addons — health index 14/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository openhab/openhab2-addons by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 14 out of 100, placing it in the Critical band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/openhab/openhab2-addons
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/openhab/openhab2-addons
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/openhab/openhab2-addons/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/openhab/openhab2-addons.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-26
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.27.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 20/100 | Critical |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 49/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 58/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 34/100 | At risk |
| Security | 16% | 15/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 59/100 | Moderate |

Abandonment Policy applies a 40% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it a ceiling of 29.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | This is an archive of the full history of the openhab2-addons repo. |
| Primary language | Java |
| License | EPL-2.0 |
| Stars | 8 |
| Forks | 15 |
| Created | 2020-09-20 |
| Last push | 2020-09-20 |
| Latest release | 2.5.9 |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 6 |
| Archived | yes — the repository is no longer maintained on GitHub |

## Vitality — 20/100 (Critical)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | not met | 0 / 36 | last push 2134 days ago |
| Commit cadence | not met | 0 / 36 | 0/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | not met | 0 / 18 | 0 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project is archived |

### Release discipline — 48/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | partial | 16.2 / 27 | 35 version tags (no GitHub releases) |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 2134 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~31.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 40 / 100 | the repository is archived on GitHub |

## Community & Adoption — 49/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 25/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 13.7 / 60 | 8 stars |
| Forks | partial | 9.6 / 25 | 15 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 1.7 / 15 | 3 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (EPL-2.0) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 58/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 48.6 / 54 | 6 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 17.5 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 22% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 29 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 38.2 | no decided pull requests or no data |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 21.9 / 25 | 1,112 followers of openhab |
| Track record | partial | 24.6 / 25 | 53 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 34/100 (At risk)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 30/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | not met | 0 / 24 | — |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 20 | no pull request found |

### Documentation — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | not met | 0 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 15/100 (Critical)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 15/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | not met | 0 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | not met | 0 / 7.5 | branch protection not enabled on development/release branches |
| CI-Tests | excluded | 0 / 2.5 | no pull request found |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 29 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | excluded | 0 / 10 | no workflows found |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project is archived |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 5 | no dependencies found |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | no SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | No tokens found |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 142 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 59/100 (Moderate)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 85 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 51/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | bom/openhab-addons/pom.xml, bom/openhab-core-index/pom.xml, bom/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | Java (statically typed) |
| Reproducible environment | not met | 0 / 10 | — |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | no dependencies found |

### Code legibility for models — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Java (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.9 / 55 | 18/7899 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 80/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | bundles/org.openhab.binding.enturno/src/main/resources/realtime_request.graphql |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | sample |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bom:org.openhab.addons.bom.test-index' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bom:org.openhab.addons.bom.runtime-index' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bom:org.openhab.addons.bom.openhab-core-index' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bundles:org.openhab.binding.astro' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bundles:org.openhab.binding.adorne' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bundles:org.openhab.binding.atlona' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bundles:org.openhab.binding.allplay' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'org.openhab.addons.bundles:org.openhab.binding.autelis' from its registry
- GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt