Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-09 16:49 UTC

temporalio / sdk-java

Temporal Java SDK

JavaApache-2.0★ 431 stars⑂ 244 forkssince Oct 2019View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined

temporalio/sdk-java holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (94/100) and lowest on Security (66/100). It was last updated today. 3 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
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.

94
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 81 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

temporal.ioOrganization · verified domain
3,774 followers228 public repossince Oct 2019

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?

94Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
33.2/36Commit cadence — 48/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 207 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year207
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year48
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 92 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 29 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~38.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count92
latest_release_tagv1.38.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release29
mean_days_between_releases38.9

Community & Adoption

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

73Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
42.7/60Stars — 431 stars
19.9/25Forks — 244 forks
6.5/15Watchers — 16 watchers
Inputs used
forks244
stars431
watchers16
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges2
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicescoveralls.io, github.com
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

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

84Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
36/54Bus factor — 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.8/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 21% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 18 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor3
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.21
How it's scored
32.8/42Issue resolution — 78% of issues closed
20.6/30PR acceptance — 1,360/1,976 decided PRs merged
8.7/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 2/3 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
15/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — all changesets reviewed
Inputs used
merged_prs1,360
open_issues218
closed_issues784
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d11
prs_merged_30d35
prs_decided_30d46
issue_closed_ratio0.782
closed_unmerged_prs616
first_time_authors_30d3
first_time_prs_merged_30d2
first_time_prs_decided_30d3
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 3,774 followers of temporalio
25/25Track record — 228 public repos, account ~6 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,774
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_logintemporalio
public_repos228
account_age_days2,523

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 8 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://temporal.io
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 11 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsworkflow-engine, workflow-automation, workflow-tool, java, open-source, java-sdk, orchestration, microservices, framework, durable-execution, temporal-sdk
has_wikino
homepagehttps://temporal.io
docs_sitehttps://temporal.io
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

66Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
5.2/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 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 18 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 13 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate5.8

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_packages4
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 4 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.

90Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, temporal-kotlin/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/src/main/java/io/temporal/internal/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/src/test/java/io/temporal/workflow/AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://temporal.io/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://temporal.io/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, temporal-kotlin/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/src/main/java/io/temporal/internal/AGENTS.md, temporal-sdk/src/test/java/io/temporal/workflow/AGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes2,328
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — mise.toml, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
8/10Demonstrated agent practice — 4 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesmise.toml, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.04
toolchain_manifestsbuild.gradle, contrib/temporal-aws-lambda/build.gradle, contrib/temporal-gcp-cloud-run/build.gradle, contrib/temporal-opentelemetry/build.gradle, contrib/temporal-opentracing/build.gradle, contrib/temporal-spring-ai/build.gradle, contrib/temporal-workflowstreams/build.gradle, temporal-bom/build.gradle, temporal-envconfig/build.gradle, temporal-kotlin/build.gradle, temporal-remote-data-encoder/build.gradle, temporal-sdk/build.gradle, temporal-serviceclient/build.gradle, temporal-shaded/build.gradle, temporal-spring-boot-autoconfigure/build.gradle, temporal-spring-boot-starter/build.gradle, temporal-test-server/build.gradle, temporal-testing/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/samples/gradle-multi-project/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/samples/gradle-multi-project/project-app/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/samples/gradle-multi-project/project-workflows/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/samples/gradle/build.gradle, temporal-workflowcheck/samples/maven/pom.xml
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
54.6/55Manageable file sizes — 12/1,720 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes156,667
source_files_sampled1,720
oversized_source_files12
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — temporal-serviceclient/src/main/proto-thirdparty/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, temporal-serviceclient/src/main/proto-thirdparty/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/temporal/api/testservice/v1/request_response.proto, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/temporal/api/testservice/v1/service.proto
0/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — sample, samples
Inputs used
example_dirssample, samples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filestemporal-serviceclient/src/main/proto-thirdparty/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/annotations.proto, temporal-serviceclient/src/main/proto-thirdparty/protoc-gen-openapiv2/options/openapiv2.proto, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/temporal/api/testservice/v1/request_response.proto, temporal-test-server/src/main/proto/temporal/api/testservice/v1/service.proto
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

431GitHub stars
100contributors
207commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
92releases
3bus factor
218open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 26 authors (cap 12)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 244 ⇿
0Stars
244Forks
92Releases

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.

05010015020025024452020-032023-062026-09
Major 1Minor 45Patch 43

Each point covers 6 days.

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 · 2026-09-09 16:48 UTC

7Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 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 18 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
8Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 8
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities13 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 4

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 4 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavenio.temporal:temporal-sdk1.22.3indirect
Mavenio.temporal:temporal-workflowcheck1.33.0indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-dependency-plugin3.6.1indirect
Mavenorg.codehaus.mojo:exec-maven-plugin3.1.1indirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 4 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.