๐Ÿ› File an issue
Pipeline Status
๐Ÿ”ด Failing
Success Rate (7d)
54.8%
Builds (7d)
42
Median Duration
21m
P95: 45m
DORA Level
High
Deployment Frequency
12.5 / week
elite
How often builds are deployed. Elite: >7ร—/week, High: 1โ€“7ร—/week, Medium: monthly, Low: less than monthly.
Lead Time
26m
elite
Time from commit to production. Elite: <1h, High: <1d, Medium: <1wk, Low: >1wk.
Change Failure Rate
31.5%
low
Percentage of deployments causing a failure. Elite: <5%, High: <10%, Medium: <15%, Low: โ‰ฅ15%.
MTTR
22.9h
high
Mean time to restore service after a failure. Elite: <1h, High: <1d, Medium: <1wk, Low: >1wk.

Monthly Overview

Success Rate (MoM)
75.9%
โ–ฒ +4.8% vs prior month
Total Builds (MoM)
228
โ–ฒ +100 vs prior month
Avg Duration (MoM)
24.8 min
โ–ฒ +7.3 min vs prior month
DORA Level
Low
This month

Monthly Overview

Monthly Build Outcomes
Monthly Build Duration
Monthly Success Rate by Repo
DORA Level Trend
Build Success Rate
Daily Build Outcomes
Build Duration Trends
Avg Duration by Repo
Failure Category Breakdown
MTTR
22.9h
Mean Time to Recovery
MTBF
10.9h
Mean Time Between Failures
Flakiness Leaderboard โ€” Top 5 Flaky Jobs
# Job Name Repo Runs Failures Failure Rate Flakiness Index Last Failure Top Failing Step
1 build / Create Manifest zirconium 593 228 3844.9%
0.331
today Exit on failure
2 build / Build and push image (amd64) zirconium 587 192 3270.9%
0.330
2d ago Build image
3 build / Build and push image (arm64) zirconium 575 178 3095.7%
0.313
today Build image
4 build / generate_matrix zirconium 593 6 101.2%
0.063
2w ago
5 build / Build and push image zirconium 6 6 10000.0%
0.000
2w ago

OpenSSF Scorecard

Collecting Scorecard data โ€” check back after the next sync.

Scores from OpenSSF Scorecard. Click a card to view the full report.

Builds Per Day
Avg Queue Wait Time
Build Trigger Breakdown
Builder Comparison โ€” All Repos
Repo Success Rate 7d Success Rate 30d Avg Duration Total Runs (7d) Last Stream Status
zirconium 54.8% 63.2% 21m 42 ๐Ÿ”ด failure

Stream Health

Repo Stream 7d Rate 30d Rate Runs (7d) Avg Duration Last Run Status
zirconium build-jackrabbit-nvidia.yaml 0.0% 20.0% 0 10m 7d ago ๐Ÿ”ด
build-jackrabbit.yaml 0.0% 16.7% 0 9m 7d ago ๐Ÿ”ด
build-nvidia.yaml 69.2% 61.8% 13 23m 2h ago ๐Ÿ”ด
build-rawhide.yaml 57.1% 80.3% 14 21m 2h ago ๐Ÿ”ด
build-standard.yaml 40.0% 56.0% 15 20m 2h ago ๐Ÿ”ด

Architecture Comparison

amd64
64.4%
7d success rate
17mavg duration45jobs (7d)
zirconium64.4%
arm64
71.1%
7d success rate
19mavg duration45jobs (7d)
zirconium71.1%
Publish Reliability
Repos at Full Coverage
0/1
โ‰ฅ95% success rate (7d)
Overall 7d Success Rate
54.8%
Avg across all repos
Repos with Recent Activity
1/1
Total runs > 0 (7d)

Publish step tracking requires live build data โ€” shown after first successful CI run.

Supply Chain Security

zirconium
Cosign Signing
80.9%
30d success rate
SBOM Coverage
0.0%
30d success rate

Rates computed from workflow step names over last 30 days. Steps not detected in pipeline are shown as โ€”.

Recent Builds
Repo Workflow Branch Trigger Duration Started Jobs
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide main sched 21m 2026-05-26T05:00:19Z 2/4 โœ—
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium (base) main sched 23m 2026-05-26T04:59:48Z 2/4 โœ—
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) main sched 30m 2026-05-26T04:55:40Z 2/4 โœ—
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide main push 23m 2026-05-25T07:35:51Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) main push 34m 2026-05-25T07:35:51Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (base) main push 27m 2026-05-25T07:35:51Z 4/4 โœ“
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide iso-locale PR 20m 2026-05-23T14:29:32Z 2/4 โœ—
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) iso-locale PR 27m 2026-05-23T14:29:32Z 4/4 โœ“
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium (base) iso-locale PR 19m 2026-05-23T14:29:32Z 3/4 โœ—
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium (base) just-load-fail PR 19m 2026-05-23T01:59:38Z 2/4 โœ—
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) just-load-fail PR 29m 2026-05-23T01:59:38Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide just-load-fail PR 19m 2026-05-23T01:59:38Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest PR 31m 2026-05-22T18:35:20Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest PR 22m 2026-05-22T18:35:20Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (base) renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest PR 19m 2026-05-22T18:35:20Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest push 18m 2026-05-22T18:35:18Z 4/4 โœ“
๐Ÿ”ด zirconium Build Zirconium (base) renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest push 19m 2026-05-22T18:35:18Z 2/4 โœ—
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) renovate/docker-metadata-action-digest push 29m 2026-05-22T18:35:18Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium (nvidia) ci-replace-cleanup-step PR 28m 2026-05-22T13:25:32Z 4/4 โœ“
๐ŸŸข zirconium Build Zirconium Rawhide ci-replace-cleanup-step PR 24m 2026-05-22T13:25:31Z 4/4 โœ“

Further Reading

The metrics on this page are grounded in peer-reviewed research and open standards. These resources explain what each metric means, why it predicts software delivery performance, and how to improve it.

Software Delivery Performance
DORA Metrics โ€” Four Keys

The canonical framework for measuring software delivery: Deployment Frequency, Lead Time for Changes, Change Failure Rate, and Time to Restore Service. Published by Google Cloud's DevOps Research and Assessment team and validated across thousands of organizations since 2014.

Supply Chain Security
OpenSSF Scorecard

Automated security health checks for open source projects, scoring 0โ€“10 across checks including signed releases, SBOM presence, branch protection, pinned dependencies, and CI test coverage. Produced by the Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF), a Linux Foundation project.

Supply Chain Security
SLSA โ€” Supply-chain Levels for Software Artifacts

A graduated framework (L0โ€“L3) for verifiable software build integrity. Each level adds stronger guarantees: L1 means provenance exists, L2 means it is signed by a hosted build platform, L3 means the build environment itself is hardened and isolated. Developed by Google and adopted as an OpenSSF standard.

Supply Chain Security
Sigstore / Cosign

Keyless, identity-based artifact signing backed by a public transparency log (Rekor). Cosign signs and verifies container images and release artifacts using short-lived OIDC certificates โ€” no long-lived private keys to manage or rotate. A CNCF project used by Kubernetes, Tekton, and the Bluefin image pipeline.

Supply Chain Security
SBOM โ€” Software Bill of Materials

A machine-readable inventory of every component and dependency in a software artifact. SBOMs make vulnerability response faster โ€” when a new CVE is published, you can immediately know which of your images are affected. The OpenSSF SBOM Everywhere SIG maintains tooling guidance and naming conventions.

Supply Chain Security
CNCF TAG Security โ€” Supply Chain Best Practices

The CNCF Technical Advisory Group for Security publishes authoritative whitepapers on cloud-native supply chain security. The Software Supply Chain Best Practices paper (v2, 2025) and the Secure Software Factory reference architecture define the practices that the Scorecard and SLSA checks encode.

Platform Engineering
CNCF Platforms White Paper

The authoritative CNCF definition of what internal developer platforms are, what they should measure (user satisfaction, self-service rate, onboarding time), and how platform teams should operate. Published by the TAG App Delivery Platforms Working Group. Recommends DORA metrics as the delivery measurement standard for platform teams.

Platform Engineering
Platform Engineering Maturity Model

A 4-level model (Provisional โ†’ Operational โ†’ Scalable โ†’ Optimizing) across five aspects: Investment, Adoption, Interfaces, Operations, and Measurement. Helps platform teams understand where they are and what practices characterize the next level. Published by the CNCF TAG App Delivery Platforms Working Group.

Platform Engineering
Cloud Native Maturity Model

A 5-level model (Build โ†’ Operate โ†’ Scale โ†’ Improve โ†’ Adapt) across Business Outcomes, People, Process, Policy, and Technology. Maintained by the CNCF Cartografos Working Group. Version 4 (2025) adds AI and FinOps dimensions. Useful for understanding where cloud-native adoption fits in the broader organizational journey.

Research
Accelerate โ€” The Science of Lean Software and DevOps

The peer-reviewed research behind DORA metrics. Nicole Forsgren, Jez Humble, and Gene Kim identified 24 technical, process, and cultural capabilities that predict software delivery performance and organizational outcomes. Required reading for understanding why deployment frequency and lead time matter.

Research
SRE Golden Signals

Google's Site Reliability Engineering book defines four signals sufficient to monitor any user-facing service: Latency, Traffic, Errors, and Saturation. These are the production observability complement to DORA โ€” they define what a "failure" actually is (without them, Change Failure Rate cannot be accurately measured) and predict when MTTR will spike before incidents occur.

Research
SPACE Framework โ€” Developer Productivity

DORA measures what the pipeline does; SPACE measures how developers experience it. Developed by Nicole Forsgren (GitHub), Margaret-Anne Storey, and colleagues at Microsoft Research. Five dimensions: Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Communication/Collaboration, and Efficiency. Never measure activity in isolation.