Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-16 20:57 UTC

sandboxie-plus / Sandboxie

Sandboxie Plus & Classic

C · C++GPL-3.0★ 19,443 stars⑂ 2,065 forkssince Apr 2020View on GitHub ↗

sandboxie-plus/Sandboxie holds a health index of 87 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Engineering Quality (48/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

87
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.

87
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 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Sandboxie-PlusOrganization
789 followers9 public repossince Apr 2020

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?

95Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 950 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year950
human_commit_share0.92
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 10 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~14.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.18.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release10
mean_days_between_releases14.1

Community & Adoption

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

95Exceptional · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 19,443 stars
25/25Forks — 2,065 forks
12.5/15Watchers — 175 watchers
Inputs used
forks2,065
stars19,443
watchers175
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges10
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

61Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
10.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 52% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.518
How it's scored
31.8/42Issue resolution — 76% of issues closed
26.9/30PR acceptance — 1,709/1,908 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 4/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs1,709
open_issues728
closed_issues2,271
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d23
prs_decided_30d28
issue_closed_ratio0.757
closed_unmerged_prs199
first_time_authors_30d4
first_time_prs_merged_30d4
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
20.8/25Owner reach — 789 followers of sandboxie-plus
19.3/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers789
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginsandboxie-plus
public_repos9
account_age_days2,344

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

48Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 10 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
14/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://Sandboxie-Plus.com
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics—
has_wikino
homepagehttps://Sandboxie-Plus.com
docs_sitehttps://Sandboxie-Plus.com
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
1.8/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-Review — Found 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
3.5/5SAST — SAST tool detected but not run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
3.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
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 1 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.

64Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
23.8/40Legible commit history — 41 of 92 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.446
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes8,132
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Sandboxie/common/Detours/Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesSandboxie/common/Detours/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C (statically typed)
51.4/55Manageable file sizes — 60/915 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC
largest_source_bytes783,768
source_files_sampled915
oversized_source_files60
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
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

19,443GitHub stars
98contributors
950commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
728open issues
—package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2,065 ⇿
0Stars
2,065Forks
72Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,0002,2002,065152023-082025-022026-09
Major 0Minor 8Patch 64

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-16 20:56 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
7CI-Tests7 out of 9 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 7
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 9/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 10 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
7SASTSAST tool detected but not run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 1

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 1 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
NuGetMicrosoft.Windows.ImplementationLibrary1.0.201120.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 1 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.