Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-24 23:19 UTC

wavemaker / wavemaker-commons

WaveMaker common application utilities

JavaNo license detected★ 4 stars⑂ 2 forkssince Jan 2017View on GitHub ↗

wavemaker/wavemaker-commons holds a health index of 22 out of 100, placing it in the At Risk band. It scores highest on Security (39/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (7/100). It was last updated 64 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

22
overall / 100
At Risk

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.

22
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 28 is calibrated to 22 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

WaveMakerOrganization
42 followers82 public repossince May 2011

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?

21At Risk · 21% of overall
How it's scored
18/36Push recencylast push 64 days ago
6.2/36Commit cadence9/52 weeks with commits
10/18Commit volume12 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year12
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push64
active_weeks_last_year9
How it's scored
0/27Ships releasesno releases published
0/36Release recencyno releases
0/27Release cadenceno releases
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count0
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?

7Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
7.7/60Stars4 stars
0/25Forks2 forks
4.7/15Watchers8 watchers
Inputs used
forks2
stars4
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
0/22.5Licenseno license file detected
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges
has_contributingno
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?

36Weak · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
11/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 51% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth30 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled30
top_contributor_share0.513
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolutionno issues or no data
0/30PR acceptance0/3 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio
closed_unmerged_prs3
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 backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
11.7/25Owner reach42 followers of wavemaker
25/25Track record82 public repos, account ~15 yr old
Inputs used
followers42
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginwavemaker
public_repos82
account_age_days5,591

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

36Weak · 19% of overall
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttp://www.wavemaker.com
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicswavemaker, rad, utility-library
has_wikiyes
homepagehttp://www.wavemaker.com
docs_sitehttp://www.wavemaker.com
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

39Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Testsno data
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
0/10Dangerous-Workflowno data
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0/2.5Licenselicense file not detected
0/7.5Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesno data
0/5SASTno SAST tool detected
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releasesno data
0/7.5Token-Permissionsno data
7.5/7.5Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated12
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive6
scorecard_aggregate2.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. 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
advisories72
affected_packages9
assessed_packages20
unassessed_packages17
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 5, moderate 2
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 20 resolved dependencies against OSV. 17 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list. 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.

36Weak · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
3.7/40Legible commit history7 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.07
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
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
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeJava (statically typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes0/288 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageJava
largest_source_bytes21,715
source_files_sampled288
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

4GitHub stars
30contributors
12commits, last 12 months
64days since last push
0releases
1bus factor
0open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

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

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 2 ⇿
0Stars
2Forks

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.

111222212023-102024-112025-12

Each point covers 2 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 2.4 / 10
2.4aggregate

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 · 2026-08-24 23:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
0Licenselicense file not detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTno SAST tool detected
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 37 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotationsindirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations2.9.8indirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-coreindirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.9.8indirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databindindirect
Mavencom.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.9.8indirect
Mavencom.google.code.gson:gsonindirect
Mavencom.google.code.gson:gson2.8.5indirect
Mavencom.mycila.maven-license-plugin:maven-license-plugin1.9.0.0indirect
Mavencom.wavemaker.tools.apidocs:wavemaker-tools-apidocs-coreindirect
Mavencom.wavemaker.tools.apidocs:wavemaker-tools-apidocs-core2.24indirect
Mavencommons-codec:commons-codecindirect
Mavencommons-codec:commons-codec1.11indirect
Mavencommons-io:commons-ioindirect
Mavencommons-io:commons-io2.6indirect
Mavenjavax.servlet:javax.servlet-apiindirect
Mavenjavax.servlet:javax.servlet-api3.1.0indirect
Mavenjunit:junitindirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-collections44.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-configuration2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-configuration22.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-lang3indirect
Mavenorg.apache.commons:commons-lang33.8.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin3.1indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin2.3.2indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin2.4indirect
Mavenorg.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin3.4indirect
Mavenorg.hamcrest:hamcrest-allindirect
Mavenorg.hibernate:hibernate-coreindirect
Mavenorg.hibernate:hibernate-core5.2.17.Finalindirect
Mavenorg.jacoco:jacoco-maven-plugin0.8.0indirect
Mavenorg.mockito:mockito-allindirect
Mavenorg.slf4j:slf4j-apiindirect
Mavenorg.springframework.security:spring-security-bom5.0.8.RELEASEindirect
Mavenorg.springframework:spring-framework-bom5.1.4.RELEASEindirect
Mavenorg.springframework:spring-webmvcindirect
Mavenorg.testng:testngindirect
Dependency advisories 9

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 20 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 9 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 17 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind2.9.8indirectcritical553.1.4
org.apache.commons:commons-configuration22.4indirectcritical52.15.0
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core2.9.8indirecthigh33.1.4
com.google.code.gson:gson2.8.5indirecthigh12.8.9
commons-io:commons-io2.6indirecthigh22.14.0
org.hibernate:hibernate-core5.2.17.Finalindirecthigh35.5.0.Beta1
org.springframework.security:spring-security-bom5.0.8.RELEASEindirecthigh15.4.4
org.apache.commons:commons-lang33.8.1indirectmoderate13.18.0
org.springframework:spring-framework-bom5.1.4.RELEASEindirectmoderate15.2.9

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.