Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-17 15:34 UTC

sagansystems / terraform-provider-snowflake

Terraform provider for managing Snowflake accounts

GoMIT★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Sep 2020forkView on GitHub ↗
KindApplicationhow this is determined

sagansystems/terraform-provider-snowflake holds a health index of 28 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (71/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 2138 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

28
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

28
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 34 is calibrated to 28 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Gladly (Internal)Organization
13 followers64 public repossince Oct 2014

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?

20At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
0/36Push recencylast push 2,138 days ago
0/36Commit cadence0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push2,138
active_weeks_last_year0
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases68 version tags (no GitHub releases)
0/36Release recencylatest release 2,183 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~9.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count68
latest_release_tagv0.15.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release2,183
mean_days_between_releases9.7

Community & Adoption

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

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars0 stars
0/25Forks0 forks
0/15Watchers1 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers1
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges2
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescodecov.io, travis-ci.com
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
13.2/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 41% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth27 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled27
top_contributor_share0.414
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
15/30PR acceptance1/2 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs1
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
8.2/25Owner reach13 followers of sagansystems
25/25Track record64 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers13
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsagansystems
public_repos64
account_age_days4,307
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

34At Risk · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
0/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/providers/chanzuckerberg/snowflake/latest
0/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://registry.terraform.io/providers/chanzuckerberg/snowflake/latest
docs_sitehttps://registry.terraform.io/providers/chanzuckerberg/snowflake/latest
has_readmeno
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

25At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
25/25Dependency lockfilesgo.sum
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfilesgo.sum
manifestsgo.mod
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configno

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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
34.3/40Legible commit history63 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.643
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrapMakefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingGo (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentlockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeGo (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/132 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageGo
largest_source_bytes16,154
source_files_sampled132
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 examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
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

0GitHub stars
27contributors
0commits, last 12 months
2,138days since last push
68releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (Skipping github.com/sagansystems/terraform-provider-snowflake: run: internal error: ListCommits:error during graphqlHandler.setup: internal error: githubv4.Query: non-200 OK status code: 503 Service Unavailable body: "{\"message\": \"No server is currently available to service your request. Sorry about that. Please try resubmitting your request and contact us if the problem persists.\"}\r\n"); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 statistics.