Compare open source projects only with similar ones, because life cycle stage, complexity, governance model and strategic value change what healthy looks like. The OSPO book warns that comparing very different projects can mislead. Group first, then judge each project against its own peer group.
The problem with one scorecard
Many teams build a single health checklist and apply it to every dependency. That feels fair, but it produces odd results. A small, finished utility with few commits looks dead next to a busy framework, even though it may simply be complete. A young project with rapid change looks risky next to a stable one, even if it is well run.
The OSPO book's metrics chapter says that understanding health is not simple. It cites a review that found 107 concerns, which researchers worked with 17 experts to organize into a framework of 21 health aspects. Those aspects cover community productivity and stability, project orchestration and leadership, and production processes and outputs.
Four traits to group by
The chapter lists the factors that matter when matching the framework to a project.
| Trait | Why it changes the reading |
|---|---|
| Life cycle stage (early or mature) | Early projects change quickly. Mature ones may change slowly by design |
| Complexity | Large, technically demanding projects need more maintainers |
| Governance model | Who decides, and how, affects continuity |
| Strategic value to you | A project you cannot replace deserves closer attention |
It then advises that when comparing projects, OSPOs should group and assess projects with similar characteristics, since comparing very different types can lead to misleading results.
How to apply it
Step 1: Tag each dependency. In your inventory, add a field for each of the four traits. Four columns are enough.
Step 2: Define two or three peer groups. For example, small stable utilities, large actively developed frameworks, and infrastructure components with foundation governance.
Step 3: Choose checks per group. For a stable utility, a release in the past year may not be the right test. A response to security reports might be. The OpenSSF guide for evaluating open source software offers a broad list, including activity level, maintainer diversity, release recency, security response and vulnerability reporting instructions. It also notes that many widely used projects have only one maintainer, so context matters.
Step 4: Flag outliers inside the group. A project that looks worse than its peers is a better signal than one that looks worse than an unrelated project.
Weight by strategic value
Spend review time where replacement is hardest. A dependency that is deeply embedded and has no alternative needs a deeper review than one you could swap in an afternoon. See how to evaluate an open source project before you adopt it.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen. Notice which fields you could extend with life cycle and strategic value tags.
How Safeguard fits
Safeguard provides SBOM and dependency scanning, giving you the inventory those tags attach to. The free scan at gold.safeguard.sh/scan is a quick way to start.
Quick check
Is low commit activity always a warning sign?
No. A finished project may be quiet. Check security response and release practice alongside activity, and compare with similar projects.
How many peer groups do we need?
Two or three is usually enough to start. Add more only when a group gives misleading results.
Sources
- OSPO Book, Chapter 6: Using Metrics in your OSPO
- OpenSSF: Concise Guide for Evaluating Open Source Software
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
