Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-20 20:19 UTC

Clawdi-AI / clawdi

TypeScript · PythonMIT★ 99 stars⑂ 20 forkssince Apr 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindNetwork servicehow this is determined
#agent#agent-cloud#claude-code#codex#hermes-agent#openclaw

Clawdi-AI/clawdi holds a health index of 67 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on AI Readiness (84/100) and lowest on Security (43/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

67
overall / 100
Good

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.

67
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 61 is calibrated to 67 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Clawdi AIOrganization
10 followers7 public repossince Feb 2026

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

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

80Excellent · 21% of overall

Development activity

74Good
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
9.7/36Commit cadence — 14/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 568 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year568
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year14

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 78 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~0.7 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count78
latest_release_tagclawdi-cli-v0.12.10-beta.55
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases0.7

Community & Adoption

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

46Weak · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

43Weak
How it's scored
32.3/60Stars — 99 stars
10.7/25Forks — 20 forks
0/15Watchers — 0 watchers
Inputs used
forks20
stars99
watchers0
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (MIT)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

45Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

34At Risk
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
7.1/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 68% of commits
8.1/13.5Contributor breadth — 6 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled6
top_contributor_share0.685

Issue & PR responsiveness

47Weak
How it's scored
13.5/42Issue resolution — 32% of issues closed
27.4/30PR acceptance — 351/385 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs351
open_issues19
closed_issues9
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.321
closed_unmerged_prs34
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.

Ownership & stewardship

56Moderate
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain — verified-domain status not read for this organization
7.5/25Owner reach — 10 followers of Clawdi-AI
7.4/25Track record — 7 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers10
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified—
owner_loginClawdi-AI
public_repos7
account_age_days144
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

81Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

82Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — biome.json
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
18/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 25 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

80Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://clawdi.ai
0/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 6 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent, agent-cloud, claude-code, codex, hermes-agent, openclaw
has_wikino
homepagehttps://clawdi.ai
docs_sitehttps://clawdi.ai
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionno

Security

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

43Weak · 16% of overall

Security posture

43Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
2.2/2.5CI-Tests — 25 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0/7.5Code-Review — Found 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
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 — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated18
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive0
scorecard_aggregate4.3

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.

84Excellent · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, apps/web/AGENTS.md, apps/web/CLAUDE.md
15/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) — llms.txt present
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtyes
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, apps/web/AGENTS.md, apps/web/CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes6,204
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — biome.json
11/11Static type checking — apps/web/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/whatsapp-baileys-sidecar/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
5/8Automated maintenance — dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesuv.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsapps/web/tsconfig.json, packages/cli/tsconfig.json, packages/shared/tsconfig.json, packages/whatsapp-baileys-sidecar/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — TypeScript (statically typed)
53.8/55Manageable file sizes — 21/947 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageTypeScript
largest_source_bytes400,667
source_files_sampled947
oversized_source_files21

Key facts

99GitHub stars
6contributors
568commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
78releases
1bus factor
19open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Could not fetch pypi package 'clawdi-backend' from its registry
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.3 / 10
4.3aggregate

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 · 2026-07-20 20:19 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
9CI-Tests25 out of 27 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 9
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
10Contributorsproject has 7 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
10Packagingpackaging workflow 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
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities34 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 23
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIfastapi>=0.115backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIuvicorn>=0.34backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIsqlalchemy>=2.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIasyncpg>=0.30backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIalembic>=1.14backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydantic-settings>=2.14.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyjwt>=2.10backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIcryptography>=44.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.28.1backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpython-multipart>=0.0.20backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIaiofiles>=24.1backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpsycopg2-binary>=2.9.11backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpgvector>=0.2.5backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIopenai>=1.40backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIfastembed>=0.3backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIsentry-sdk>=2.23backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIwebsockets>=16.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIpyyaml>=6.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIcomposio>=0.11backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIcomposio-client>=1.39.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIprometheus-client>=0.25.0backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIboto3>=1.35backend/pyproject.toml
PyPIbotocore>=1.35backend/pyproject.toml
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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Clawdi-AI/clawdi. Read them side by side →

95NousResearch/hermes-agentThe agent that grows with youExceptional93NVIDIA/NeMo-RelayMulti-language agent runtime and library for execution scope management, lifecycle events, and middleware on tool and LLM calls.Exceptional90farion1231/cc-switchA cross-platform desktop All-in-One assistant for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, OpenClaw, Grok Build & Hermes Agent. Only official website: ccswitch.ioExcellent89zilliztech/memsearchA persistent, unified memory layer for all your AI agents (e.g. Claude Code, Codex), backed by Markdown and Milvus.Excellent88rohitg00/agentmemory#1 Persistent memory for AI coding agents based on real-world benchmarksExcellent94MemoriLabs/MemoriMemori is agent-native memory infrastructure. A LLM-agnostic layer that turns agent execution and conversation into structured, persistent state for production systems. Built for enterprise, Memori works with the data infrastructure you already run, no rip-and-replace, and deploys across managed cloud, single-tenant cloud, VPC, and on-premises.Exceptional

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 v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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