Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-18 05:25 UTC

risingwavelabs / dbt-risingwave

Use dbt to manage real-time data transformations in RisingWave.

PythonApache-2.0★ 36 stars⑂ 16 forkssince Feb 2023View on GitHub ↗

risingwavelabs/dbt-risingwave holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (91/100) and lowest on Security (21/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RisingWave LabsOrganization
428 followers113 public repossince Jan 2021

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publishTags
PyPIdbt-risingwave1.12.029,537380 days agodbtrisingwave

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
15.9/36Commit cadence23/52 weeks with commits
16.8/18Commit volume73 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year73
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year23

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases36 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count36
latest_release_tagv1.12.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases9

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
25/60Stars36 stars
9.8/25Forks16 forks
3.9/15Watchers6 watchers
Inputs used
forks16
stars36
watchers6
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)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
59.6/80Monthly downloads29,537 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependentsnot reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdbt-risingwave
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads29,537
unverified_packages_excluded
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

72Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
4.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 80% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth11 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled11
top_contributor_share0.799
How it's scored
41/42Issue resolution98% of issues closed
27.5/30PR acceptance111/121 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs111
open_issues1
closed_issues43
prs_merged_7d4
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d6
prs_decided_30d8
issue_closed_ratio0.977
closed_unmerged_prs10
first_time_authors_30d1
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d1
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
18.9/25Owner reach428 followers of risingwavelabs
24.2/25Track record113 public repos, account ~5 yr old
Inputs used
followers428
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginrisingwavelabs
public_repos113
account_age_days2,047
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recencylatest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history38 published versions
20/20Not deprecatedactive, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdbt-risingwave
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.flake8, tox.ini
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.risingwave.com/integrations/other/dbt
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsdbt
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.risingwave.com/integrations/other/dbt
docs_sitehttps://docs.risingwave.com/integrations/other/dbt
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

21At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestssetup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. 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
advisories4
affected_packages1
assessed_packages8
unassessed_packages19
affected_by_severitycritical 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 8 resolved dependencies against OSV. 19 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.

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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history95 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.95
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.flake8, tox.ini
11/11Static type checkingmypy.ini
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice10 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsmypy.ini
agent_commit_share0.1
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable codePython with type-check config (mypy.ini)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/19 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes20,676
source_files_sampled19
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

36GitHub stars
11contributors
73commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
1open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:dbt-risingwave@1.12.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead
  • OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 16 ⇿
0Stars
16Forks
24Releases

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.

04812161612023-122025-032026-05
Major 0Minor 5Patch 18

Each point covers 3 days.

All dependencies 27

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 27 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIarrow-udf0.3.1indirect
PyPIblack24.2.0indirect
PyPIbumpversionindirect
PyPIdbt-adaptersindirect
PyPIdbt-commonindirect
PyPIdbt-common1.39.0indirect
PyPIdbt-coreindirect
PyPIdbt-core1.12.2indirect
PyPIdbt-postgresindirect
PyPIdbt-postgres1.11.0indirect
PyPIdbt-tests-adapter1.20.0indirect
PyPIflake8indirect
PyPIflakyindirect
PyPIfreezegun0.3.12indirect
PyPIipdbindirect
PyPImypy1.8.0indirect
PyPIpip-toolsindirect
PyPIpre-commitindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-csvindirect
PyPIpytest-dotenvindirect
PyPIpytest-xdistindirect
PyPIpytzindirect
PyPIsqlfmtindirect
PyPItoxindirect
PyPItwineindirect
PyPIwheelindirect
Dependency advisories 1

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 8 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 19 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
black24.2.0indirectcritical426.3.1

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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