Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 23:30 UTC

spring-projects / spring-framework

Spring Framework

JavaApache-2.0★ 60,157 stars⑂ 38,802 forkssince Dec 2010View on GitHub ↗

spring-projects/spring-framework holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (56/100). It was last updated 1 day ago. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

SpringOrganization
16,803 followers77 public repossince Jun 2010

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?

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 1 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,885 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,885
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push1
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 57 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~16 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv7.0.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release57
mean_days_between_releases16
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?

93Exceptional · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars60,157 stars
25/25Forks38,802 forks
15/15Watchers3,271 watchers
Inputs used
forks38,802
stars60,157
watchers3,271
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

75Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.5/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 26% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth98 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled98
top_contributor_share0.265
How it's scored
41.5/42Issue resolution99% of issues closed
4.9/30PR acceptance935/5,722 decided PRs merged
2.2/13Newcomer PR acceptance2/12 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs935
open_issues378
closed_issues27,948
prs_merged_7d1
prs_decided_7d4
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d20
issue_closed_ratio0.987
closed_unmerged_prs4,787
first_time_authors_30d11
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d12
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach16,803 followers of spring-projects
25/25Track record77 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers16,803
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginspring-projects
public_repos77
account_age_days5,880
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

74Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows14 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://spring.io/projects/spring-framework
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsframework, spring, spring-framework
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://spring.io/projects/spring-framework
docs_sitehttps://spring.io/projects/spring-framework
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

74Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests1 out of 1 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
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
5/5Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
2.5/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
3.5/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
5/5Security-Policysecurity policy file 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_aggregate6.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages7
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 7 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.

56Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
14.9/40Legible commit history28 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.28
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrapbuild.gradle, buildSrc/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checkingJava (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
7/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle, buildSrc/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
54.8/55Manageable file sizes31/9,616 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes293,596
source_files_sampled9,616
oversized_source_files31
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)spring-messaging/src/test/proto/sample.proto, spring-web/src/test/proto/sample.proto, spring-webflux/src/test/proto/sample.proto
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexample, examples, sample, samples
Inputs used
example_dirsexample, examples, sample, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesspring-messaging/src/test/proto/sample.proto, spring-web/src/test/proto/sample.proto, spring-webflux/src/test/proto/sample.proto
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

60,157GitHub stars
98contributors
1,885commits, last 12 months
1days since last push
100releases
3bus factor
378open issues
Maven, npmpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 18 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 38,802 ⇿
0Stars
38,802Forks
22Releases

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.

37,50038,00038,50039,00038,802172025-082026-022026-08
Major 1Minor 0Patch 17
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.8 / 10
6.8aggregate

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 · 2026-08-04 23:30 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 1/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 48 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 13 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
7Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 7
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
npmantora3.2.0-alpha.12framework-docs/package.json
npm@antora/atlas-extension1.0.0-alpha.5framework-docs/package.json
npm@antora/collector-extension1.0.3framework-docs/package.json
npm@asciidoctor/tabs1.0.0-beta.6framework-docs/package.json
npm@springio/antora-extensions1.14.12framework-docs/package.json
npmfast-xml-parser5.7.0framework-docs/package.json
npm@springio/asciidoctor-extensions1.0.0-alpha.18framework-docs/package.json
All dependencies 7

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 0 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
npm@antora/atlas-extension1.0.0-alpha.5direct
npm@antora/collector-extension1.0.3direct
npm@asciidoctor/tabs1.0.0-beta.6direct
npm@springio/antora-extensions1.14.12direct
npm@springio/asciidoctor-extensions1.0.0-alpha.18direct
npmantora3.2.0-alpha.12direct
npmfast-xml-parser5.7.0direct
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 7 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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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