# CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin — health index 56/100 (Moderate)

> Inspection of the public repository CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 56 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. The index is a signal derived from publicly visible practice, not a warranty, a security audit, or an endorsement, and it is independent of payment.

- Repository: https://github.com/CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/c/CodeGoblinAI/CodeGoblin.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.23.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 54/100 | Moderate |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 36/100 | At risk |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 61/100 | Moderate |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 84/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 38/100 | At risk |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 86/100 | Excellent |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Your local AI goblin for code, images, and agents. |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | MIT |
| Stars | 2 |
| Forks | 0 |
| Created | 2026-05-24 |
| Last push | 2026-07-21 |
| Commits (last year) | 12,149 |
| Bus factor | 4 |
| Topics | ai-coding-agent-cli-tui-local-first-llm |

## Vitality — 54/100 (Moderate)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | met | 36 / 36 | 52/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 12149 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | not met | 0 / 10 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |

### Release discipline — 1/100 (Critical)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | no releases |
| Release cadence | not met | 0 / 27 | no releases |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 36/100 (At risk)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 1/100 (Critical)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | not met | 0 / 60 | 2 stars |
| Forks | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 forks |
| Watchers | not met | 0 / 15 | 0 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (MIT) |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | not met | 0 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 61/100 (Moderate)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 43.2 / 54 | 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 18 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 20% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 98 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 28 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 62/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | excluded | 0 / 46.8 | no issues or no data |
| PR acceptance | partial | 33.2 / 38.2 | 73/84 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 32/100 (At risk)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | not met | 0 / 25 | 0 followers of CodeGoblinAI |
| Track record | partial | 2.4 / 25 | 1 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 84/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 9 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 1 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 38/100 (At risk)

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, with no malicious dependency and no unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure? Weight: 16% of the overall index.

### Security posture — 40/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases, Vulnerabilities. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 2.2 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 10 out of 10 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |
| CII-Best-Practices | not met | 0 / 2.5 | no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/10 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 28 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | not met | 0 / 7.5 | no update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | not met | 0 / 7.5 | project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 2 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |
| SAST | not met | 0 / 5 | SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0 |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal error: vulnerabilitiesClient.ListUnfixedVulnerabilities: osvscanner.DoScan: client error: status="400 Bad Request" body={"code":3,"message":"error in query at index 59: rpc error: code = InvalidArgument desc = invalid hash"} |

### Dependency advisories — 32/100 (At risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 200 resolved dependencies against OSV; 31 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.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct dependencies free of known advisories | partial | 6.7 / 35 | 8 affected: cross-spawn catalog: (high 7.5), drizzle-orm catalog: (high 7.5), effect catalog: (high 7.4), +5 more |
| Indirect dependencies free of known advisories | excluded | 0 / 25 | transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope |
| No advisories left outstanding | partial | 17.5 / 40 | 8 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 3191 days ago |

### Malicious dependencies — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | no dependency is reported as a malicious package |

### High-Risk Jurisdiction Exposure — 100/100 (Excellent)

Only high-confidence self-published location evidence affects this multiplier. Ambiguous matches are review-only; country evidence is not proof of nationality, citizenship, legal registration, malicious intent, or sanctions status.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Policy exposure multiplier | met | 100 / 100 | no confirmed policy-scope location match |

## AI Readiness — 86/100 (Excellent)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, packages/app/AGENTS.md, packages/codegoblin/AGENTS.md, packages/codegoblin/src/server/routes/instance/httpapi/AGENTS.md, packages/codegoblin/src/session/llm/AGENTS.md, packages/codegoblin/test/AGENTS.md, packages/codegoblin/test/server/AGENTS.md, packages/desktop/AGENTS.md, packages/effect-drizzle-sqlite/AGENTS.md, packages/llm/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 100 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | packages/codegoblin-native/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | eslint.config.mjs |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | github/tsconfig.json, packages/app/e2e/tsconfig.json, packages/app/tsconfig.json, packages/codegoblin/tsconfig.json, packages/core/tsconfig.json, packages/desktop/tsconfig.json, packages/effect-drizzle-sqlite/tsconfig.json, packages/http-recorder/tsconfig.json, packages/llm/tsconfig.json, packages/plugin/tsconfig.json, packages/script/tsconfig.json, packages/sdk/js/tsconfig.json, packages/storybook/tsconfig.json, packages/ui/tsconfig.json, sdks/vscode/tsconfig.json, tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, Nix |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 6 / 10 | 3 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 4 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4 |

### Code legibility for models — 99/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54.3 / 55 | 24/1876 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | met | 40 / 40 | packages/docs/openapi.json, packages/sdk/openapi.json |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | example, examples |

## Collection warnings

- Could not fetch npm package '@codegoblin/ui' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'opencode' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@codegoblin/app' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@codegoblin/plugin' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package '@codegoblin/script' from its registry
- Could not fetch crates package 'codegoblin-native' from its registry

## What this report is

inspect.software measures public repositories against a single published, versioned methodology and reports the result as a 1–100 health index. Findings are signals derived from what is visible in public repository data — they are not a security audit, a warranty, or an endorsement, and no result depends on payment.

- Methodology, formulas and weights: https://inspect.software/methodology.md
- What a result does and does not claim: https://inspect.software/wiki/signals-not-warranties.md
- Rating bands: https://inspect.software/wiki/scoring-bands.md
- Corrections: https://inspect.software/contact.md
- Index of all documents: https://inspect.software/llms.txt