Public recordExcellent
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-04 05:02 UTC
rundeck / terraform-provider-rundeck
Terraform Rundeck provider
rundeck/terraform-provider-rundeck holds a health index of 86 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (89/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (61/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.
86
overall / 100Software 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)
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
RundeckOrganization
183 followers44 public repossince Aug 2012
This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.
Package ecosystems
| Registry | Package | Version | Downloads / mo | Versions | Last publish |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-rundeckpoints to another repo — not scored | v0.4.0 | - | 5 | 2589 days ago |
Metrics by category
Vitality
Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?
88
Development activity
82Excellent
How it's scored
| 36/36 | Push recency — last push 1 days ago |
| 18/36 | Commit cadence — 26/52 weeks with commits |
| 18/18 | Commit volume — 164 commits in the last year |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| commits_last_year | 164 |
| human_commit_share | 0.8 |
| days_since_last_push | 1 |
| active_weeks_last_year | 26 |
Release discipline
98Exceptional
How it's scored
| 27/27 | Ships releases — 36 releases published |
| 36/36 | Release recency — latest release 7 days ago |
| 27/27 | Release cadence — a release every ~16.5 days |
| 8/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
Inputs used
| releases_count | 36 |
| latest_release_tag | v1.4.0 |
| releases_from_tags | no |
| days_since_latest_release | 7 |
| mean_days_between_releases | 16.5 |
Community & Adoption
Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?
61
Popularity & adoption
50Moderate
How it's scored
| 28.5/60 | Stars — 58 stars |
| 14.9/25 | Forks — 63 forks |
| 6.4/15 | Watchers — 15 watchers |
Inputs used
| forks | 63 |
| stars | 58 |
| watchers | 15 |
| growth_state | unverified |
| growth_factor_pct | 100 |
| growth_unverified_reason | no_history |
Community health
73Good
How it's scored
| 22.5/22.5 | README |
| 22.5/22.5 | License — recognized license (MPL-2.0) |
| 0/18 | CONTRIBUTING guide |
| 13.5/13.5 | Code of conduct |
| 7.2/7.2 | Issue template |
| 0/6.3 | PR template |
Inputs used
| has_readme | yes |
| has_license | yes |
| readme_badges | 0 |
| has_contributing | no |
| has_issue_template | yes |
| has_code_of_conduct | yes |
| readme_badge_services | — |
| has_pull_request_template | no |
Sustainability & Governance
Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?
63
How it's scored
| 9/54 | Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| 9/22.5 | Commit distribution — top contributor authored 60% of commits |
| 13.5/13.5 | Contributor breadth — 40 contributors |
| 10/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations |
Inputs used
| bus_factor | 1 |
| contributors_sampled | 40 |
| top_contributor_share | 0.6 |
Issue & PR responsiveness
80Excellent
How it's scored
| 41/42 | Issue resolution — 98% of issues closed |
| 21/30 | PR acceptance — 150/214 decided PRs merged |
| 0/13 | Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| 7.5/15 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
Inputs used
| merged_prs | 150 |
| open_issues | 2 |
| closed_issues | 80 |
| prs_merged_7d | 0 |
| prs_decided_7d | 0 |
| prs_merged_30d | 12 |
| prs_decided_30d | 13 |
| issue_closed_ratio | 0.976 |
| closed_unmerged_prs | 64 |
| first_time_authors_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_merged_30d | 0 |
| first_time_prs_decided_30d | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
Ownership & stewardship
70Good
How it's scored
| 30/30 | Ownership backing — organization-owned |
| 0/20 | Verified domain |
| 16.3/25 | Owner reach — 183 followers of rundeck |
| 24/25 | Track record — 44 public repos, account ~14 yr old |
Inputs used
| followers | 183 |
| owner_type | Organization |
| is_verified | no |
| owner_login | rundeck |
| public_repos | 44 |
| account_age_days | 5,124 |
Engineering Quality
Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?
77
Engineering practices
68Good
How it's scored
| 24/24 | CI workflows — 3 workflow(s) |
| 24/24 | Tests present |
| 0/16 | Linter config |
| 0/9.6 | Pre-commit hooks |
| 0/6.4 | .editorconfig |
| 20/20 | OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
Inputs used
| has_ci | yes |
| has_tests | yes |
| has_editorconfig | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| has_precommit_config | no |
Documentation
90Excellent
How it's scored
| 30/30 | README |
| 25/25 | Documentation directory |
| 15/15 | Documentation / homepage site — https://registry.terraform.io/providers/rundeck/rundeck/latest |
| 10/10 | Repository description |
| 10/10 | Topics — 3 topics |
| 0/10 | Wiki |
Inputs used
| topics | terraform, terraform-provider, rundeck |
| has_wiki | no |
| homepage | https://registry.terraform.io/providers/rundeck/rundeck/latest |
| docs_site | https://registry.terraform.io/providers/rundeck/rundeck/latest |
| has_readme | yes |
| has_docs_dir | yes |
| has_description | yes |
Security
Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?
66
Security posture
58Moderate
How it's scored
| 7.5/7.5 | Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo |
| 3/7.5 | Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 2.5/2.5 | CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0/2.5 | CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 3.8/7.5 | Code-Review — Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| 2.5/2.5 | Contributors — project has 11 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10/10 | Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected |
| 0/5 | Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed |
| 2.5/2.5 | License — license file detected |
| 7.5/7.5 | Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 5/5 | Packaging — packaging workflow detected |
| 2.5/5 | Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5 |
| 0/5 | SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0/5 | Security-Policy — security policy file not detected |
| 6/7.5 | Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 0/7.5 | Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 0.8/7.5 | Vulnerabilities — 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Inputs used
| source | openssf_scorecard |
| checks_evaluated | 18 |
| scorecard_version | v5.5.0 |
| checks_inconclusive | 0 |
| scorecard_aggregate | 5.8 |
Dependency advisories
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 35/35 | Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 0/25 | Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| 0/40 | No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date |
Inputs used
| source | osv |
| advisories | 9 |
| affected_packages | 5 |
| assessed_packages | 65 |
| unassessed_packages | 0 |
| affected_by_severity | high 1, unknown 4 |
| direct_affected_packages | 0 |
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 65 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.
89
Agent context & guidance
85Excellent
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Agent instructions — .cursorrules, .github/copilot-instructions.md |
| 0/15 | Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) |
| 40/40 | Legible commit history — 64 of 80 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |
Inputs used
| has_llms_txt | no |
| llms_txt_url | — |
| legible_history_share | 0.8 |
| agent_instruction_files | .cursorrules, .github/copilot-instructions.md |
| agent_instruction_max_bytes | 12,323 |
Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)
84Excellent
How it's scored
| 18/18 | One-command bootstrap — GNUmakefile |
| 22/22 | Automated tests |
| 0/11 | Lint / format config |
| 11/11 | Static type checking — Go (statically typed) |
| 10/10 | Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile |
| 10/10 | Demonstrated agent practice — 19 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| 8/8 | Automated maintenance — 20 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| 5/10 | OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5 |
Inputs used
| has_nix | no |
| has_tests | yes |
| lockfiles | go.sum |
| has_dockerfile | yes |
| typed_language | yes |
| bootstrap_files | GNUmakefile |
| has_devcontainer | no |
| has_linter_config | no |
| typecheck_configs | — |
| agent_commit_share | 0.19 |
| toolchain_manifests | go.mod |
| dependency_bot_commit_share | 0.2 |
Code legibility for models
97Exceptional
How it's scored
| 45/45 | Type-checkable code — Go (statically typed) |
| 52.2/55 | Manageable file sizes — 3/58 source files over 60KB |
Inputs used
| primary_language | Go |
| largest_source_bytes | 86,937 |
| source_files_sampled | 58 |
| oversized_source_files | 3 |
Machine-readable interfaces
100Exceptional
How it's scored
| 0/40 | API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 0/20 | MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software |
| 40/40 | Runnable examples — examples |
Inputs used
| example_dirs | examples |
| has_mcp_signal | no |
| 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
58GitHub stars
40contributors
164commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
36releases
1bus factor
2open issues
Gopackage ecosystems
Data collection warnings
- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- go package 'github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-rundeck' points at a different repository (https://github.com/terraform-providers/terraform-provider-rundeck); excluded from ecosystem scoring
More detail
Star and fork history 0 ★ / 63 ⇿
0Stars
63Forks
35Releases
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.
Major 1Minor 4Patch 29
Each point covers 8 days.
OpenSSF Scorecard 5.8 / 10
5.8aggregate
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).
| 10 | Binary-Artifacts | no binaries found in the repo |
| 4 | Branch-Protection | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| 10 | CI-Tests | 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| 0 | CII-Best-Practices | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| 5 | Code-Review | Found 5/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5 |
| 10 | Contributors | project has 11 contributing companies or organizations |
| 10 | Dangerous-Workflow | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| 10 | Dependency-Update-Tool | update tool detected |
| 0 | Fuzzing | project is not fuzzed |
| 10 | License | license file detected |
| 10 | Maintained | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| 10 | Packaging | packaging workflow detected |
| 5 | Pinned-Dependencies | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 5 |
| 0 | SAST | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| 0 | Security-Policy | security policy file not detected |
| 8 | Signed-Releases | 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts. |
| 0 | Token-Permissions | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| 1 | Vulnerabilities | 9 existing vulnerabilities detected |
Direct dependencies 6
| Registry | Package | Version constraint | Manifest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-framework | v1.19.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-framework-validators | v0.19.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-go | v0.31.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk/v2 | v2.40.1 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/rundeck/go-rundeck/rundeck | v1.2.0 | go.mod |
| Go | github.com/rundeck/go-rundeck/rundeck-v2 | v1.2.0 | go.mod |
All dependencies 65
Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 6 direct and 59 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.
| Registry | Package | Version | Relation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-framework | v1.19.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-framework-validators | v0.19.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-go | v0.31.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-sdk/v2 | v2.40.1 | direct |
| Go | github.com/rundeck/go-rundeck/rundeck | v1.2.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/rundeck/go-rundeck/rundeck-v2 | v1.2.0 | direct |
| Go | github.com/agext/levenshtein | v1.2.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/apparentlymart/go-textseg/v15 | v15.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest | v14.2.0+incompatible | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/autorest | v0.11.30 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/autorest/adal | v0.9.24 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/autorest/date | v0.3.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/autorest/validation | v0.3.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/logger | v0.2.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/azure/go-autorest/tracing | v0.6.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/cloudflare/circl | v1.6.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/fatih/color | v1.18.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4 | v4.5.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/golang/protobuf | v1.5.4 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/google/go-cmp | v0.7.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/errwrap | v1.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-checkpoint | v0.5.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-cleanhttp | v0.5.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-cty | v1.5.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-hclog | v1.6.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-multierror | v1.1.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-plugin | v1.7.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-retryablehttp | v0.7.8 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-uuid | v1.0.3 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/go-version | v1.9.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/hc-install | v0.9.4 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/hcl/v2 | v2.24.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/logutils | v1.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-exec | v0.25.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-json | v0.27.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-plugin-log | v0.10.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-registry-address | v0.4.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/terraform-svchost | v0.1.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/hashicorp/yamux | v0.1.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/kr/text | v0.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mattn/go-colorable | v0.1.14 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mattn/go-isatty | v0.0.20 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/copystructure | v1.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/go-testing-interface | v1.14.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/go-wordwrap | v1.0.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/mapstructure | v1.5.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/mitchellh/reflectwalk | v1.0.2 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/oklog/run | v1.2.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/protonmail/go-crypto | v1.4.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/vmihailenco/msgpack | v4.0.4+incompatible | indirect |
| Go | github.com/vmihailenco/msgpack/v5 | v5.4.1 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/vmihailenco/tagparser/v2 | v2.0.0 | indirect |
| Go | github.com/zclconf/go-cty | v1.18.1 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/crypto | v0.52.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/mod | v0.35.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/net | v0.55.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sync | v0.20.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/sys | v0.45.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/text | v0.37.0 | indirect |
| Go | golang.org/x/tools | v0.44.0 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/appengine | v1.6.8 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc | v0.0.0-20260414002931-afd174a4e478 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/grpc | v1.82.1 | indirect |
| Go | google.golang.org/protobuf | v1.36.11 | indirect |
| Go | gopkg.in/validator.v2 | v2.0.1 | indirect |
Dependency advisories 5
This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 65 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 5 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.
| Package | Version | Relation | Severity | Advisories | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| google.golang.org/grpc | v1.82.1 | indirect | high | 1 | 1.83.1 |
| golang.org/x/crypto | v0.52.0 | indirect | unknown | 4 | 0.56.0 |
| golang.org/x/mod | v0.35.0 | indirect | unknown | 2 | 1.27.0-rc.3 |
| golang.org/x/net | v0.55.0 | indirect | unknown | 1 | 1.27.0-rc.3 |
| golang.org/x/text | v0.37.0 | indirect | unknown | 1 | 0.39.0 |
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.
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 — Go.