Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 23:26 UTC

thousandeyes / thousandeyes-sdk-java

Java SDK for accessing ThousandEyes v7 APIs

JavaApache-2.0★ 3 stars⑂ 8 forkssince Nov 2023View on GitHub ↗

thousandeyes/thousandeyes-sdk-java holds a health index of 71 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (84/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (46/100). It was last updated 5 days ago. 2 contributors account for most of its recent work.

71
overall / 100
Good

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.

71
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 63 is calibrated to 71 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

ThousandEyesOrganization
242 followers28 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?

84Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 5 days ago
13.2/36Commit cadence — 19/52 weeks with commits
15.2/18Commit volume — 48 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year48
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push5
active_weeks_last_year19

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 43 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 11 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~22.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count43
latest_release_tag6.1.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release11
mean_days_between_releases22.5
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?

46Weak · 17% of overall
How it's scored
4.9/60Stars — 3 stars
7/25Forks — 8 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks8
stars3
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

85Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

58Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
25.2/54Bus factor — 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
14.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 37% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 10 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor2
contributors_sampled10
top_contributor_share0.367
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
13.6/30PR acceptance — 100/221 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
7.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
merged_prs100
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d4
prs_decided_30d5
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs121
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
17.2/25Owner reach — 242 followers of thousandeyes
22.6/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~16 yr old
Inputs used
followers242
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginthousandeyes
public_repos28
account_age_days5,969

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 19 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
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 site — https://developer.cisco.com/docs/thousandeyes/v7/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsengineering, third-party
has_wikino
homepagehttps://developer.cisco.com/docs/thousandeyes/v7/
docs_sitehttps://developer.cisco.com/docs/thousandeyes/v7/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

57Moderate · 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
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 19 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3.8/7.5Code-Review — Found 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
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
7.5/7.5Maintained — 23 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate5.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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.

57Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.thousandeyes.com/llms.txt)
33.8/40Legible commit history — 57 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.thousandeyes.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.633
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — administrative/build.gradle, agents/build.gradle, alerts/build.gradle (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — Java (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
4/10Demonstrated agent practice — 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency 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_share0.02
toolchain_manifestsadministrative/build.gradle, agents/build.gradle, alerts/build.gradle, bgp-monitors/build.gradle, bgp-updates/build.gradle, build.gradle, cloud-insights-integrations/build.gradle, connectors/build.gradle, core/authentication/build.gradle, core/client-native/build.gradle, core/client-spring/build.gradle, core/client/build.gradle, core/configuration/build.gradle, credentials/build.gradle, dashboards/build.gradle, emulation/build.gradle, endpoint-agents/build.gradle, endpoint-instant-tests/build.gradle, endpoint-labels/build.gradle, endpoint-test-results/build.gradle, endpoint-tests/build.gradle, event-detection/build.gradle, instant-tests/build.gradle, internet-insights/build.gradle, snapshots/build.gradle, tags/build.gradle, test-results/build.gradle, tests/build.gradle, usage/build.gradle
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — Java (statically typed)
53.5/55Manageable file sizes — 41/1,499 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes114,644
source_files_sampled1,499
oversized_source_files41
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — administrative/api/openapi.yaml, agents/api/openapi.yaml, alerts/api/openapi.yaml, bgp-monitors/api/openapi.yaml, bgp-updates/api/openapi.yaml, cloud-insights-integrations/api/openapi.yaml, connectors/api/openapi.yaml, credentials/api/openapi.yaml, dashboards/api/openapi.yaml, emulation/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-agents/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-instant-tests/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-labels/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-test-results/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-tests/api/openapi.yaml, event-detection/api/openapi.yaml, instant-tests/api/openapi.yaml, internet-insights/api/openapi.yaml, snapshots/api/openapi.yaml, tags/api/openapi.yaml, test-results/api/openapi.yaml, tests/api/openapi.yaml, usage/api/openapi.yaml
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesadministrative/api/openapi.yaml, agents/api/openapi.yaml, alerts/api/openapi.yaml, bgp-monitors/api/openapi.yaml, bgp-updates/api/openapi.yaml, cloud-insights-integrations/api/openapi.yaml, connectors/api/openapi.yaml, credentials/api/openapi.yaml, dashboards/api/openapi.yaml, emulation/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-agents/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-instant-tests/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-labels/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-test-results/api/openapi.yaml, endpoint-tests/api/openapi.yaml, event-detection/api/openapi.yaml, instant-tests/api/openapi.yaml, internet-insights/api/openapi.yaml, snapshots/api/openapi.yaml, tags/api/openapi.yaml, test-results/api/openapi.yaml, tests/api/openapi.yaml, usage/api/openapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

3GitHub stars
10contributors
48commits, last 12 months
5days since last push
43releases
2bus factor
0open issues
Mavenpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 8 ⇿
0Stars
8Forks
29Releases

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.

02468812024-082025-062026-03
Major 1Minor 26Patch 1

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.7 / 10
5.7aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 23:26 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
9CI-Tests19 out of 21 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
5Code-ReviewFound 11/20 approved changesets -- score normalized to 5
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained23 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
10Security-Policysecurity policy file 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
Dependency advisories not assessed

Advisory matching could not run for this report: No resolved dependencies to assess

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.