# provectus/kafka-ui — health index 29/100 (Critical)

> Inspection of the public repository provectus/kafka-ui by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 29 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/provectus/kafka-ui
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/provectus/kafka-ui
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/provectus/kafka-ui/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/p/provectus/kafka-ui.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.25.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 19/100 | Critical |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 94/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 79/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 72/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 20/100 | Critical |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 63/100 | Moderate |

High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to weighted overall health and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Open-Source Web UI for Apache Kafka Management |
| Primary language | Java |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 12,235 |
| Forks | 1,410 |
| Created | 2019-11-26 |
| Last push | 2024-07-26 |
| Latest release | v0.7.2 |
| Commits (last year) | 0 |
| Bus factor | 9 |
| Topics | kafka-ui, kafka-brokers, kafka, kafka-streams, kafka-client, opensource, kafka-connect, kafka-producer, streams, big-data, apache-kafka, cluster-management, web-ui, kafka-manager, kafka-cluster, streaming-data, event-streaming, hacktoberfest |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| maven | com.provectus:kafka-ui-serde-api | 1.1.0 | — |

## Vitality — 19/100 (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 725 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 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |

### Release discipline — 47/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 25 releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 832 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~90.1 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | partial | 60 / 100 | no human commit for 834 days; 5 unmet obligation(s): pull requests unanswered, issues unanswered, a fixed advisory left unapplied, releases stalled, Scorecard reports it unmaintained |

## Community & Adoption — 94/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 96/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 12,235 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,410 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 10.5 / 15 | 79 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

## Sustainability & Governance — 79/100 (Good)

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) — 97/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 9 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 19.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 13% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 9 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 81/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 39.5 / 46.8 | 84% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.9 / 38.2 | 1650/2342 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 71/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 16.4 / 25 | 193 followers of provectus |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 87 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on maven |
| Publish recency | partial | 4 / 35 | latest publish 1320 days ago |
| Version history | partial | 12 / 20 | 2 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 72/100 (Good)

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

### Engineering practices — 70/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 28 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 20/100 (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 — 19/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized. High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy applies a 50% multiplier to Security posture and gives it an At risk ceiling of 49.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | partial | 6.8 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 9 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | not met | 0 / 10 | dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 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 | 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | met | 5 / 5 | SAST tool detected |
| Security-Policy | partial | 2 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 85 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 25/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 927 resolved dependencies against OSV; 60 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 3.2 / 35 | 9 affected: jsonpath-plus 7.2.0 (critical 9.8), com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java 3.23.3 (high 7.5), lodash 4.17.21 (high 8.1), +6 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 15.3 / 40 | 9 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 913 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 50/100 (Moderate)

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 | partial | 50 / 100 | Russia: contributor_organization (1); Russia: top_contributor (1) |

## AI Readiness — 63/100 (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 | 51 of 56 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | kafka-ui-api/pom.xml, kafka-ui-contract/pom.xml, kafka-ui-e2e-checks/pom.xml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.json |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | kafka-ui-react-app/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 44 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | Java (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/901 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 40/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | documentation/compose/proto/key-types.proto, documentation/compose/proto/values.proto, kafka-ui-api/src/test/resources/protobuf-serde/address-book.proto, kafka-ui-api/src/test/resources/protobuf-serde/lang-description.proto, kafka-ui-api/src/test/resources/protobuf-serde/language/language.proto, kafka-ui-api/src/test/resources/protobuf-serde/sensor.proto |
| MCP server | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | not met | 0 / 40 | — |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch maven package 'com.provectus:kafka-ui-api' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'com.provectus:kafka-ui-contract' from its registry
- Could not fetch maven package 'com.provectus:kafka-ui-e2e-checks' from its registry

## 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