Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.5.0 · 2026-08-05 06:43 UTC

snyk / kubernetes-monitor

Use Snyk to find and fix vulnerabilities in your Kubernetes workloads

TypeScriptCustom license★ 100 stars⑂ 82 forkssince May 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined

snyk/kubernetes-monitor holds a health index of 90 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (95/100) and lowest on Security (55/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

90
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.

90
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 76 is calibrated to 90 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SnykOrganization
1,902 followers239 public repossince Jun 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 recency — last push 1 days ago
27/36Commit cadence — 39/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 215 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year215
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year39

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~2.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv2.23.23
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases2.2
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?

72Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
32.4/60Stars — 100 stars
15.9/25Forks — 82 forks
10.4/15Watchers — 75 watchers
Inputs used
forks82
stars100
watchers75
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

86Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

77Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 64 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled64
top_contributor_share0.369
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
24.3/30PR acceptance — 1,361/1,682 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 3/6 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,361
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d6
prs_decided_7d9
prs_merged_30d20
prs_decided_30d31
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs321
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d3
first_time_prs_decided_30d6
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
23.6/25Owner reach — 1,902 followers of snyk
25/25Track record — 239 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,902
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginsnyk
public_repos239
account_age_days4,065

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

78Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .eslintrc.json
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

55Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.snyk.io/products/snyk-container/image-scanning-library/kubernetes-workload-and-image-scanning/kubernetes-integration-overview
10/10Repository description
0/10Topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topics
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.snyk.io/products/snyk-container/image-scanning-library/kubernetes-workload-and-image-scanning/kubernetes-integration-overview
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

55Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7.5/7.5Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 15 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packaging — no data
1.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
4.5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
1.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): packaging, 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.

61Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 81 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
legible_history_share0.81
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .eslintrc.json
11/11Static type checking — test/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
6/10Demonstrated agent practice — 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configstest/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0.03
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/85 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes13,142
source_files_sampled85
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

100GitHub stars
64contributors
215commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
0open issues
npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 82 ⇿
0Stars
82Forks
90Releases

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.

0204060801008132020-032023-052026-07
Major 0Minor 14Patch 76

Each point covers 6 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.5 / 10
5.5aggregate

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 · 2026-08-05 06:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests10 out of 10 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 15 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
3Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 3
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
9Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
2Vulnerabilities8 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 18
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npm@aws-sdk/client-ecr^3.1079.0package.json
npm@kubernetes/client-node^0.22.3package.json
npm@snyk/dep-graph^2.16.9package.json
npmasync^3.2.6package.json
npmbunyan^1.8.15package.json
npmchild-process-promise^2.2.1package.json
npmfastq^1.19.1package.json
npmfs-extra^10.1.0package.json
npmlru-cache^6.0.0package.json
npmneedle^3.5.0package.json
npmpackageurl-js^1.2.1package.json
npmsleep-promise^9.1.0package.json
npmsnyk-config5.3.0package.json
npmsnyk-docker-plugin^9.20.0package.json
npmsource-map-support^0.5.21package.json
npmtunnel0.0.6package.json
npmtypescript4.9.5package.json
npmyaml^2.9.0package.json
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

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 v2.5.0, schema v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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