Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-20 23:18 UTC

AcademySoftwareFoundation / OpenImageIO

Reading, writing, and processing images in a wide variety of file formats, using a format-agnostic API, aimed at VFX applications.

C++Apache-2.0★ 2,387 stars⑂ 714 forkssince Feb 2011View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryCommand-line toolhow this is determined

AcademySoftwareFoundation/OpenImageIO holds a health index of 96 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (71/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

96
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.

96
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 83 is calibrated to 96 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

1,694 followers49 public repossince Jul 2018

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIOpenImageIO3.2.1.3238,505335 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 533 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year533
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

98Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 100 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 5 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~8.3 days
8/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv3.2.1.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release5
mean_days_between_releases8.3

Community & Adoption

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

91Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
54.8/60Stars — 2,387 stars
23.8/25Forks — 714 forks
11.8/15Watchers — 131 watchers
Inputs used
forks714
stars2,387
watchers131
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
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
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesbestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org, github.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
71.7/80Monthly downloads — 238,505 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesOpenImageIO
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads238,505
unverified_packages_excluded—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

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

71Good · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
3.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 86% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 100 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.855
How it's scored
37.8/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
26.7/30PR acceptance — 3,913/4,400 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
10.5/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
Inputs used
merged_prs3,913
open_issues107
closed_issues962
prs_merged_7d16
prs_decided_7d17
prs_merged_30d57
prs_decided_30d59
issue_closed_ratio0.9
closed_unmerged_prs487
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
23.2/25Owner reach — 1,694 followers of AcademySoftwareFoundation
24.4/25Track record — 49 public repos, account ~8 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,694
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginAcademySoftwareFoundation
public_repos49
account_age_days3,031

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 5 days ago
20/20Version history — 33 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesOpenImageIO
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish5

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

80Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 9 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 28 out of 30 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

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://openimageio.readthedocs.org
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsimages, image-processing, texture, vfx, c-plus-plus, c-plus-plus-11
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://openimageio.readthedocs.org
docs_sitehttps://openimageio.readthedocs.org
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

79Good · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
1.2/2.5CII-Best-Practices — badge detected: Passing
5.2/7.5Code-Review — Found 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
5/5Fuzzing — project is fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
4.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
0.5/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
6/7.5Signed-Releases — 5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
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_aggregate7.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages1
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:OpenImageIO@3.2.1.3 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 1 packages. 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.

75Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes7,955
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, src/doc/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — src/python/stubs/OpenImageIO/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
9/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesMakefile, src/doc/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configssrc/python/stubs/OpenImageIO/py.typed
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
51.2/55Manageable file sizes — 38/547 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes5,056,106
source_files_sampled547
oversized_source_files38

Key facts

2,387GitHub stars
100contributors
533commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
107open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi download statistics for 'OpenImageIO' unavailable this scan (stats endpoint failed after retries); adoption may be under-evidenced
  • pypi download figures for OpenImageIO carried forward from the previous scan (stats endpoint unavailable this scan)

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 714 ⇿
0Stars
714Forks
99Releases

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.

0125250375500625750702112011-022018-122026-10
Major 0Minor 0Patch 0

Each point covers 15 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 7.4 / 10
7.4aggregate

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 · 2026-10-20 23:17 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal error: error during branchesHandler.setup: internal error: some github tokens can't read classic branch protection rules: https://github.com/ossf/scorecard-action/blob/main/docs/authentication/fine-grained-auth-token.md
9CI-Tests28 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
5CII-Best-Practicesbadge detected: Passing
7Code-ReviewFound 22/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 7
10Contributorsproject has 20 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
10Fuzzingproject is fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 24 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
9Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 9
1SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 1
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
8Signed-Releases5 out of the last 5 releases have a total of 5 signed artifacts.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
10Vulnerabilities0 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=2.0,<3pyproject.toml
All dependencies 9

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 8 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy—direct
PyPIbreathe—indirect
PyPIfuro—indirect
PyPImyst-parser—indirect
PyPInanobind—indirect
PyPIpybind11—indirect
PyPIscikit-build-core—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPIsphinx-tabs—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:OpenImageIO@3.2.1.3 pulls in 1 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

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 — PyPI.