Public record
Software health reportschema 0.27.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-28 15:38 UTC

Blaizzy / mlx-vlm

MLX-VLM is a package for inference and fine-tuning of Vision Language Models (VLMs) on your Mac using MLX.

PythonMIT★ 5,262 stars⑂ 685 forkssince Apr 2024View on GitHub ↗

Blaizzy/mlx-vlm holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (98/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

94
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.

94
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 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Prince CanumaPersonal account
1,455 followers106 public repossince Nov 2016kulissiwa.com

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPImlx-vlm0.6.8899,926720 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

98Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
32.5/36Commit cadence — 47/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 712 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year712
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year47

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 72 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~9.1 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count72
latest_release_tagv0.6.8
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases9.1
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?

86Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
60/60Stars — 5,262 stars
23.6/25Forks — 685 forks
8.4/15Watchers — 33 watchers
Inputs used
forks685
stars5,262
watchers33
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
79.4/80Monthly downloads — 899,926 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesmlx-vlm
dependents
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads
monthly_downloads899,926
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
10.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 54% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.544
How it's scored
36.7/42Issue resolution — 87% of issues closed
22.6/30PR acceptance — 722/957 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
9/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
merged_prs722
open_issues90
closed_issues620
prs_merged_7d
prs_decided_7d
prs_merged_30d
prs_decided_30d
issue_closed_ratio0.873
closed_unmerged_prs235
first_time_authors_30d
first_time_prs_merged_30d
first_time_prs_decided_30d
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
22.7/25Owner reach — 1,455 followers of Blaizzy
25/25Track record — 106 public repos, account ~9 yr old
Inputs used
followers1,455
owner_typeUser
is_verified
owner_loginBlaizzy
public_repos106
account_age_days3,543
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 0 days ago
20/20Version history — 72 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesmlx-vlm
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish0

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

85Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 13 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsllava, llm, mlx, vision-transformer, apple-silicon, idefics, local-ai, paligemma, vision-framework, vision-language-model, florence2, molmo, pixtral
has_wikiyes
homepage
docs_site
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

58Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — no data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 8 contributing companies or organizations
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 — 30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
0.5/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 58 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories113
affected_packages13
assessed_packages95
unassessed_packages17
affected_by_severitycritical 2, high 8, moderate 2, low 1
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 95 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.

52Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
35.7/40Legible commit history — 67 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.67
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
1/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
54/55Manageable file sizes — 19/1,061 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes418,015
source_files_sampled1,061
oversized_source_files19
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

5,262GitHub stars
99contributors
712commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
72releases
1bus factor
90open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • deps.dev does not index pypi:mlx-vlm@0.6.8; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 685 ⇿
0Stars
685Forks
71Releases

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.

0125250375500625750638632024-042025-062026-07
Major 0Minor 6Patch 65

Each point covers 3 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-07-28 15:37 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
10CI-Tests15 out of 15 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6Code-ReviewFound 10/15 approved changesets -- score normalized to 6
10Contributorsproject has 8 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 16 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
1Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities58 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 112

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 112 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohappyeyeballs2.6.1indirect
PyPIaiohttp3.13.3indirect
PyPIaiosignal1.4.0indirect
PyPIannotated-doc0.0.4indirect
PyPIannotated-types0.7.0indirect
PyPIanyio4.12.1indirect
PyPIasync-timeout5.0.1indirect
PyPIattrs25.4.0indirect
PyPIaudioop-lts0.2.2indirect
PyPIbrotli1.2.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.1.4indirect
PyPIcffi2.0.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.4.4indirect
PyPIclick8.3.1indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIdatasets4.5.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.0indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIfastapiindirect
PyPIfastapi0.136.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.20.3indirect
PyPIfrozenlist1.8.0indirect
PyPIfsspec2025.10.0indirect
PyPIgradio6.15.2indirect
PyPIgradio-client2.5.0indirect
PyPIgroovy0.1.2indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhf-gradio0.4.1indirect
PyPIhf-xet1.4.3indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIhuggingface-hub1.10.2indirect
PyPIidna3.11indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.6indirect
PyPIllguidanceindirect
PyPIllguidance1.7.5indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe3.0.3indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPIminiaudioindirect
PyPIminiaudio1.61indirect
PyPImlxindirect
PyPImlx0.32.0indirect
PyPImlx-audioindirect
PyPImlx-audio0.4.3indirect
PyPImlx-cpu0.30.4indirect
PyPImlx-cuda0.30.0indirect
PyPImlx-lmindirect
PyPImlx-lm0.31.3indirect
PyPImlx-metal0.32.0indirect
PyPImlx-whisperindirect
PyPImultidict6.7.1indirect
PyPImultiprocess0.70.18indirect
PyPInumpyindirect
PyPInumpy2.2.6indirect
PyPInumpy2.4.1indirect
PyPInvidia-cublas-cu1212.9.1.4indirect
PyPInvidia-cuda-nvrtc-cu1212.9.86indirect
PyPInvidia-cudnn-cu129.18.1.3indirect
PyPInvidia-nccl-cu122.29.2indirect
PyPIopencv-pythonindirect
PyPIopencv-python4.13.0.90indirect
PyPIorjson3.11.5indirect
PyPIpackaging26.0indirect
PyPIpandas2.3.3indirect
PyPIpandas3.0.0indirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIpillow12.1.0indirect
PyPIpropcache0.4.1indirect
PyPIprotobuf6.33.4indirect
PyPIpyarrow23.0.0indirect
PyPIpycparser3.0indirect
PyPIpydantic2.12.5indirect
PyPIpydantic-core2.41.5indirect
PyPIpydub0.25.1indirect
PyPIpygments2.19.2indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpython-multipartindirect
PyPIpython-multipart0.0.22indirect
PyPIpytz2025.2indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.3indirect
PyPIregex2026.1.15indirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIrequests2.32.5indirect
PyPIrich14.3.1indirect
PyPIsafehttpx0.1.7indirect
PyPIsafetensors0.8.0indirect
PyPIscipy1.15.3indirect
PyPIscipy1.17.1indirect
PyPIsemantic-version2.10.0indirect
PyPIsentencepiece0.2.1indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsounddevice0.5.5indirect
PyPIspeechrecognitionindirect
PyPIstarletteindirect
PyPIstarlette1.2.0indirect
PyPItokenizers0.22.2indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPItqdmindirect
PyPItqdm4.67.1indirect
PyPItransformersindirect
PyPItransformers5.14.0indirect
PyPItyper0.21.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.15.0indirect
PyPItyping-inspection0.4.2indirect
PyPItzdata2025.3indirect
PyPIurllib32.6.3indirect
PyPIuvicornindirect
PyPIuvicorn0.40.0indirect
PyPIxxhash3.6.0indirect
PyPIyarl1.22.0indirect
Dependency advisories 13

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 95 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 13 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
aiohttp3.13.3indirectcritical423.14.1
pillow12.1.0indirectcritical3812.3.0
click8.3.1indirecthigh18.3.3
gradio6.15.2indirecthigh16.16.0
orjson3.11.5indirecthigh13.11.6
protobuf6.33.4indirecthigh26.33.5
pyarrow23.0.0indirecthigh223.0.1
python-multipart0.0.22indirecthigh120.0.31
starlette1.2.0indirecthigh41.3.1
urllib32.6.3indirecthigh42.7.0
idna3.11indirectmoderate23.15
requests2.32.5indirectmoderate22.33.0
pygments2.19.2indirectlow22.20.0

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 v0.27.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statisticsPyPI.