Public record
Software health reportschema 0.12.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-18 02:26 UTC

spiffe / spire-api-sdk

SPIRE API Service Definitions

MakefileApache-2.0★ 21 stars⑂ 40 forkssince Mar 2021View on GitHub ↗
#spire

spiffe/spire-api-sdk holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (30/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

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.

60
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 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SPIFFEOrganization
377 followers36 public repossince May 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/spiffe/spire-api-sdkv1.15.2-1008 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

67Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

53Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
5.5/36Commit cadence — 8/52 weeks with commits
9.4/18Commit volume — 10 commits in the last year
2/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
commits_last_year10
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year8

Release discipline

88Excellent
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 100 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 8 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~23.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv1.15.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release8
mean_days_between_releases23.7
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?

53Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

38Weak
How it's scored
21.1/60Stars — 21 stars
13.3/25Forks — 40 forks
3.3/15Watchers — 5 watchers
Inputs used
forks40
stars21
watchers5
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

70Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingyes
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?

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

86Excellent
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
19/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 16% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 18 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled18
top_contributor_share0.156

Issue & PR responsiveness

66Good
How it's scored
23.4/42Issue resolution — 56% of issues closed
23.2/30PR acceptance — 68/88 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs68
open_issues4
closed_issues5
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.556
closed_unmerged_prs20
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.

Ownership & stewardship

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
18.5/25Owner reach — 377 followers of spiffe
23.4/25Track record — 36 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers377
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginspiffe
public_repos36
account_age_days3,710
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 8 days ago
20/20Version history — 100 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/spiffe/spire-api-sdk
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish8

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

42Weak · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

30At Risk
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
0/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsno
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsspire
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

35Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

35Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 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
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
1.5/7.5Maintained — 3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated15
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive3
scorecard_aggregate3.5
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, 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.

30At Risk · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no 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.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

34At Risk
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile
0/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsno
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile
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.

Code legibility for models

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Makefile without a type-check config
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 1/36 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageMakefile
largest_source_bytes77,230
source_files_sampled36
oversized_source_files1

Machine-readable interfaces

50Moderate
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — proto/spire/api/agent/debug/v1/debug.proto, proto/spire/api/agent/delegatedidentity/v1/delegatedidentity.proto, proto/spire/api/agent/logger/v1/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/server/agent/v1/agent.proto, proto/spire/api/server/bundle/v1/bundle.proto, proto/spire/api/server/debug/v1/debug.proto, proto/spire/api/server/entry/v1/entry.proto, proto/spire/api/server/localauthority/v1/localauthority.proto, proto/spire/api/server/logger/v1/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/server/svid/v1/svid.proto, proto/spire/api/server/trustdomain/v1/trustdomain.proto, proto/spire/api/types/agent.proto, proto/spire/api/types/attestation.proto, proto/spire/api/types/bundle.proto, proto/spire/api/types/entry.proto, proto/spire/api/types/federateswith.proto, proto/spire/api/types/federationrelationship.proto, proto/spire/api/types/jointoken.proto, proto/spire/api/types/jwtsvid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/types/selector.proto, proto/spire/api/types/spiffeid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/status.proto, proto/spire/api/types/witsvid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/x509svid.proto
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesproto/spire/api/agent/debug/v1/debug.proto, proto/spire/api/agent/delegatedidentity/v1/delegatedidentity.proto, proto/spire/api/agent/logger/v1/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/server/agent/v1/agent.proto, proto/spire/api/server/bundle/v1/bundle.proto, proto/spire/api/server/debug/v1/debug.proto, proto/spire/api/server/entry/v1/entry.proto, proto/spire/api/server/localauthority/v1/localauthority.proto, proto/spire/api/server/logger/v1/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/server/svid/v1/svid.proto, proto/spire/api/server/trustdomain/v1/trustdomain.proto, proto/spire/api/types/agent.proto, proto/spire/api/types/attestation.proto, proto/spire/api/types/bundle.proto, proto/spire/api/types/entry.proto, proto/spire/api/types/federateswith.proto, proto/spire/api/types/federationrelationship.proto, proto/spire/api/types/jointoken.proto, proto/spire/api/types/jwtsvid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/logger.proto, proto/spire/api/types/selector.proto, proto/spire/api/types/spiffeid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/status.proto, proto/spire/api/types/witsvid.proto, proto/spire/api/types/x509svid.proto
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

21GitHub stars
18contributors
10commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
100releases
4bus factor
4open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.5 / 10
3.5aggregate

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 · 2026-07-18 02:26 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
3CI-Tests7 out of 18 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
7Code-ReviewFound 16/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
2Maintained3 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 2
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not 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
0Vulnerabilities11 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpcv1.74.2go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobufv1.36.7go.mod
All dependencies 6

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Gogoogle.golang.org/grpc1.74.2direct
Gogoogle.golang.org/protobuf1.36.7direct
Gogolang.org/x/net0.43.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/sys0.35.0indirect
Gogolang.org/x/text0.28.0indirect
Gogoogle.golang.org/genproto/googleapis/rpc0.0.0-20250811230008-5f3141c8851aindirect
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with spiffe/spire-api-sdk. Read them side by side →

32otterize/credentials-operatorAutomatically register and generate AWS, GCP & Azure IAM roles, X.509 certificates and username/password pairs for Kubernetes pods using cert-manager, CNCF SPIRE or Otterize CloudAt Risk89maxlambrecht/rust-spiffeA collection of crates for SPIFFE workload identity, Workload API clients, SPIRE-specific APIs, and TLS integration.Excellent100pingcap/tidbTiDB is built for agentic workloads that grow unpredictably, with ACID guarantees and native support for transactions, analytics, and vector search. No data silos. No noisy neighbors. No infrastructure ceiling.Exceptional100grafana/lokiLike Prometheus, but for logs.Exceptional100moby/mobyThe Moby Project - a collaborative project for the container ecosystem to assemble container-based systemsExceptional100openfga/openfgaA high performance and flexible authorization/permission engine built for developers and inspired by Google ZanzibarExceptional

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 v0.12.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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