Public record
Software health reportschema 0.11.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-17 04:55 UTC

sangria-graphql / sangria

Scala GraphQL implementation

ScalaApache-2.0★ 1,961 stars⑂ 219 forkssince Jul 2015View on GitHub ↗

sangria-graphql/sangria 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 AI Readiness (39/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 2 contributors account 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

SangriaOrganization
35 followers29 public repossince Jul 2015

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 recencylast push 2 days ago
27/36Commit cadence39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume176 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year176
human_commit_share
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year39

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 9 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~43.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv4.2.19
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release9
mean_days_between_releases43.4
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?

68Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
53.4/60Stars1,961 stars
19.5/25Forks219 forks
9.7/15Watchers57 watchers
Inputs used
forks219
stars1,961
watchers57
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_badges
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

76Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 36% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth60 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled60
top_contributor_share0.362
How it's scored
37.4/42Issue resolution89% of issues closed
24.2/30PR acceptance664/822 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_prs664
open_issues51
closed_issues417
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.891
closed_unmerged_prs158
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
11.2/25Owner reach35 followers of sangria-graphql
22.8/25Track record29 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers35
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsangria-graphql
public_repos29
account_age_days4,007
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

67Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://sangria-graphql.github.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics4 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicssangria, graphql, scala, api
has_wikino
homepagehttps://sangria-graphql.github.io
docs_sitehttps://sangria-graphql.github.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
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 21 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packagingpackaging workflow detected
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_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

39Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit historyno data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingScala (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno data
0/8Automated maintenanceno data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeScala (statically typed)
54.4/55Manageable file sizes3/263 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageScala
largest_source_bytes88,951
source_files_sampled263
oversized_source_files3
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/block-string-rendered.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/block-string.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink-pretty.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/scenarios/validation/validation.schema.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/block-string.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/complex-query.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/too-many-comments.graphql
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesmodules/core/src/test/resources/queries/block-string-rendered.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/block-string.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink-pretty.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/core/src/test/resources/scenarios/validation/validation.schema.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/block-string.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/complex-query.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/schema-kitchen-sink.graphql, modules/parser/src/test/resources/queries/too-many-comments.graphql
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

1,961GitHub stars
60contributors
176commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
2bus factor
51open issues
package ecosystems

More detail

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).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-17 04:54 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
10CI-Tests13 out of 13 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
10Code-Reviewall changesets reviewed
10Contributorsproject has 21 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
All dependencies 0

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

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
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 v0.11.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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