Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-13 14:46 UTC

CircleCI-Research / evalbench

Evaluate LLMs side-by-side. Benchmark AI models and coding agents across providers like OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, DeepSeek, and more. Supports custom tasks, structured JSON responses, tool use, and LLM-as-judge validation. Originally created by Petr Malik as MindTrial.

HTMLMPL-2.0★ 0 stars⑂ 0 forkssince Mar 2026forkView on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryApplicationhow this is determined

CircleCI-Research/evalbench holds a health index of 42 out of 100, placing it in the Weak band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (71/100) and lowest on Community & Adoption (12/100). It was last updated 177 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

42
overall / 100
Weak

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.

42
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 45 is calibrated to 42 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

CircleCI ResearchOrganization · verified domain
4 followers9 public repossince Oct 2022

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
Gogithub.com/CircleCI-Research/evalbenchv0.17.0-33178 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

53Moderate · 21% of overall
How it's scored
9.9/36Push recency — last push 177 days ago
10.4/36Commit cadence — 15/52 weeks with commits
16.5/18Commit volume — 67 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year67
human_commit_share1
days_since_last_push177
active_weeks_last_year15
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 33 version tags (no GitHub releases)
27/36Release recency — latest release 178 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~13.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count33
latest_release_tagv0.17.0
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release178
mean_days_between_releases13.2
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?

12Critical · 17% of overall
How it's scored
0/60Stars — 0 stars
0/25Forks — 0 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks0
stars0
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
0/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MPL-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeno
has_licenseno
readme_badges5
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, goreportcard.com, pkg.go.dev, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

62Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
6/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.681
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
30/30PR acceptance — 1/1 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs1
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs0
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 backing — organization-owned
20/20Verified domain
5/25Owner reach — 4 followers of CircleCI-Research
15.2/25Track record — 9 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers4
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedyes
owner_loginCircleCI-Research
public_repos9
account_age_days1,438

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on go
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 178 days ago
20/20Version history — 33 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesgithub.com/CircleCI-Research/evalbench
ecosystemsgo
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish178

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

51Moderate · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

25At Risk
How it's scored
0/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://loop.circleci.com
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 10 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsai, ai-agents, benchmark-framework, ci-cd, circleci, devops, evaluation-framework, evaluation-metrics, llm, model-comparison
has_wikino
homepagehttps://loop.circleci.com
docs_sitehttps://loop.circleci.com
has_readmeno
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionno

Security

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

30At Risk · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
3.8/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
2.5/2.5CI-Tests — 1 out of 1 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
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
1.5/2.5Contributors — project has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
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
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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 — 50 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

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.

71Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt served by the project website (https://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 96 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_urlhttps://docs.anthropic.com/llms.txt
legible_history_share0.96
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes3,085
How it's scored
12.6/18One-command bootstrap — go.mod (toolchain convention, no task runner)
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 11 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesgo.sum
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0.11
toolchain_manifestsgo.mod
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — HTML without a type-check config
54.4/55Manageable file sizes — 5/442 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageHTML
largest_source_bytes73,199
source_files_sampled442
oversized_source_files5

Key facts

0GitHub stars
2contributors
67commits, last 12 months
177days since last push
33releases
1bus factor
0open issues
Gopackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Community profile unavailable
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.0 / 10
3.0aggregate

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 · 2026-09-13 14:45 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
5Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
10CI-Tests1 out of 1 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
6Contributorsproject has 2 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 6
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
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
0Vulnerabilities50 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 24
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/x/termv0.2.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/containerd/errdefsv1.0.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/docker/dockerv28.5.2+incompatiblego.mod
Gogithub.com/google/uuidv1.6.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/invopop/jsonschemav0.13.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/kaptinlin/jsonrepairv0.2.8go.mod
Gogithub.com/oklog/ulid/v2v2.1.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/openai/openai-go/v3v3.26.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/santhosh-tekuri/jsonschema/v6v6.0.2go.mod
Gogithub.com/sethvargo/go-retryv0.3.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/stretchr/testifyv1.11.1go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/timev0.14.0go.mod
Gogoogle.golang.org/genaiv1.48.0go.mod
Gogopkg.in/validator.v2v2.0.1go.mod
Gogopkg.in/yaml.v3v3.0.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/anthropics/anthropic-sdk-gov1.26.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubbles/v2v2.0.0-beta.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/bubbletea/v2v2.0.0-beta.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/charmbracelet/lipgloss/v2v2.0.0-beta.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/cohesion-org/deepseek-gov1.3.3go.mod
Gogithub.com/go-playground/validator/v10v10.30.1go.mod
Gogithub.com/rs/zerologv1.34.0go.mod
Gogithub.com/sergi/go-diffv1.4.0go.mod
Gogolang.org/x/expv0.0.0-20260218203240-3dfff04db8fago.mod
All dependencies not collected

The resolved dependency set could not be collected for this report: GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

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 — Go.