Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 20:19 UTC

rollbar / rollbar-java

Rollbar for Java and Android

JavaMIT★ 76 stars⑂ 74 forkssince Nov 2015View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryMobile applicationhow this is determined

rollbar/rollbar-java holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (81/100) and lowest on Security (65/100). It was last updated 10 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

86
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.

86
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 72 is calibrated to 86 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RollbarOrganization · verified domain
115 followers145 public repossince Jan 2013

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?

72Good · 21% of overall
How it's scored
28.8/36Push recencylast push 10 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence14/52 weeks with commits
13.1/18Commit volume28 commits in the last year
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
commits_last_year28
human_commit_share0.96
days_since_last_push10
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases43 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 35 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~33.6 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count43
latest_release_tagv2.3.1
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release35
mean_days_between_releases33.6
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?

65Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
30.4/60Stars76 stars
15.5/25Forks74 forks
8.1/15Watchers30 watchers
Inputs used
forks74
stars76
watchers30
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges1
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
15.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 31% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth31 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled31
top_contributor_share0.314
How it's scored
40.2/42Issue resolution96% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance211/246 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs211
open_issues5
closed_issues115
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio0.958
closed_unmerged_prs35
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
14.8/25Owner reach115 followers of rollbar
25/25Track record145 public repos, account ~13 yr old
Inputs used
followers115
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginrollbar
public_repos145
account_age_days4,979

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

75Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter configclippy.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://docs.rollbar.com/docs/java
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics9 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrollbar, java, exceptions, android, error-monitoring, error-reporting, log4j, observability, spring-boot
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.rollbar.com/docs/java
docs_sitehttps://docs.rollbar.com/docs/java
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

65Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
0.8/7.5Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate5.6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging, 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
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages61
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
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 61 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
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history76 of 96 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.792
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapbuild-logic/conventions/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, examples/rollbar-android/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format configclippy.toml
11/11Static type checkingJava (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance4 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild-logic/conventions/build.gradle.kts, build.gradle.kts, examples/rollbar-android/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-java/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-log4j2/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-logback/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-reactive-streams-reactor/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-scala/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-spring-boot-webmvc/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-spring-boot3-webmvc/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-spring-webmvc/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-struts2-spring/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-struts2/build.gradle, examples/rollbar-web/build.gradle, native-agent/Cargo.toml, rollbar-android/build.gradle.kts, rollbar-api/build.gradle, rollbar-jakarta-web/build.gradle, rollbar-java/build.gradle.kts, rollbar-log4j2/build.gradle, rollbar-logback/build.gradle, rollbar-okhttp/build.gradle.kts, rollbar-reactive-streams-reactor/build.gradle, rollbar-reactive-streams/build.gradle.kts, rollbar-spring-boot-webmvc/build.gradle, rollbar-spring-boot3-webmvc/build.gradle, rollbar-spring-webmvc/build.gradle, rollbar-spring6-webmvc/build.gradle, rollbar-struts2/build.gradle, rollbar-web/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0.04
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/269 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes43,811
source_files_sampled269
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples
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

76GitHub stars
31contributors
28commits, last 12 months
10days since last push
43releases
2bus factor
5open issues
crates.io, Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • Could not fetch crates package 'rollbar-java-agent' from its registry

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 74 ⇿
0Stars
74Forks
42Releases

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.

01325385063757332016-032021-042026-05
Major 2Minor 12Patch 18

Each point covers 10 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.6 / 10
5.6aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 20:18 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
9CI-Tests28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
1Maintained2 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 1
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
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 4
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
crates.iojni0.21.1native-agent/Cargo.toml
crates.iolog0.4.26native-agent/Cargo.toml
crates.iopretty_env_logger0.5.0native-agent/Cargo.toml
crates.ioerror-chain0.12.0native-agent/Cargo.toml
All dependencies 61

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 4 direct and 57 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
crates.ioerror-chain0.12.0direct
crates.iojni0.21.1direct
crates.iolog0.4.27direct
crates.iopretty_env_logger0.5.0direct
crates.ioaho-corasick1.1.3indirect
crates.iobindgen0.71.1indirect
crates.iobitflags2.9.0indirect
crates.iobytes1.11.1indirect
crates.iocesu81.1.0indirect
crates.iocexpr0.6.0indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.0indirect
crates.ioclang-sys1.8.1indirect
crates.iocombine4.6.7indirect
crates.ioeither1.15.0indirect
crates.ioenv_logger0.10.2indirect
crates.ioglob0.3.2indirect
crates.iohermit-abi0.5.0indirect
crates.iohumantime2.2.0indirect
crates.iois-terminal0.4.16indirect
crates.ioitertools0.13.0indirect
crates.iojni-sys0.3.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.43indirect
crates.iolibloading0.8.6indirect
crates.iomemchr2.7.4indirect
crates.iominimal-lexical0.2.1indirect
crates.ionom7.1.3indirect
crates.ioprettyplease0.2.32indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.94indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.40indirect
crates.ioregex1.11.1indirect
crates.ioregex-automata0.4.9indirect
crates.ioregex-syntax0.8.5indirect
crates.iorustc-hash2.1.1indirect
crates.iosame-file1.0.6indirect
crates.ioshlex1.3.0indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.100indirect
crates.iotermcolor1.4.1indirect
crates.iothiserror1.0.69indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl1.0.69indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.18indirect
crates.iowalkdir2.5.0indirect
crates.iowinapi-util0.1.9indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.45.0indirect
crates.iowindows-sys0.59.0indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows-targets0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_aarch64_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_i686_msvc0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnu0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_gnullvm0.52.6indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.42.2indirect
crates.iowindows_x86_64_msvc0.52.6indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 61 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.