Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-11 05:33 UTC

Coding-Dev-Tools / engraphis

Local-first, inspectable memory for coding agents: durable context across sessions and repositories, code-aware recall, bi-temporal history, MCP, and a self-hosted WebUI.

Python · JavaScriptApache-2.0★ 173 stars⑂ 31 forkssince Jun 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolNetwork serviceLibraryhow this is determined
#agent-memory#ai-agents#developer-tools#knowledge-graph#local-first#mcp#python#self-hosted

Coding-Dev-Tools/engraphis holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (90/100) and lowest on Sustainability & Governance (47/100). It was last updated 2 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

77
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.

77
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 66 is calibrated to 77 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

JaixiiPersonal account
29 followers28 public repossince Apr 2026

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 publishTags
PyPIengraphis1.7.3795342 days agoaiagentsmemorymcpragvector-searchllmretrieval

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

73Good · 21% of overall

Development activity

61Moderate
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 2 days ago
6.9/36Commit cadence — 10/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 433 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
Inputs used
commits_last_year433
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push2
active_weeks_last_year10

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 14 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 2 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~4.4 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count14
latest_release_tagv1.7.3
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release2
mean_days_between_releases4.4

Community & Adoption

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

52Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

50Moderate
How it's scored
36.3/60Stars — 173 stars
12.3/25Forks — 31 forks
1.7/15Watchers — 3 watchers
Inputs used
forks31
stars173
watchers3
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

57Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges3
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes

Ecosystem adoption (downloads)

48Weak
How it's scored
38.7/80Monthly downloads — 795 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesengraphis
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads795
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?

47Weak · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

12Critical
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 100% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.998

Issue & PR responsiveness

54Moderate
How it's scored
0/42Issue resolution — no issues or no data
25/30PR acceptance — 173/208 decided PRs merged
6.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
merged_prs173
open_issues0
closed_issues0
prs_merged_7d12
prs_decided_7d12
prs_merged_30d43
prs_decided_30d49
issue_closed_ratio—
closed_unmerged_prs35
first_time_authors_30d2
first_time_prs_merged_30d1
first_time_prs_decided_30d2
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Issue resolution. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

40Weak
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
10.6/25Owner reach — 29 followers of Coding-Dev-Tools
11.5/25Track record — 28 public repos, account ~0 yr old
Inputs used
followers29
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginCoding-Dev-Tools
public_repos28
account_age_days155
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 2 days ago
20/20Version history — 34 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesengraphis
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish2

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

84Excellent
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 6 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://engraphis.com/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 8 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent-memory, ai-agents, developer-tools, knowledge-graph, local-first, mcp, python, self-hosted
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://engraphis.com/
docs_sitehttps://engraphis.com/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

69Good · 16% of overall

Security posture

61Moderate
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 — 30 out of 30 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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5Contributors — project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
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
0/7.5Maintained — project was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
5/5Packaging — packaging workflow detected
2/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
5/5SAST — SAST tool is run on all commits
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
5.2/7.5Vulnerabilities — 3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated17
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive1
scorecard_aggregate6.1
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:engraphis@1.7.3 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.

67Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

85Excellent
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 89 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.989
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes20,257

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — integrations/pi/tsconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile, lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
4/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespackage-lock.json
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configsintegrations/pi/tsconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1

Code legibility for models

79Good
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (integrations/pi/tsconfig.json)
51.6/55Manageable file sizes — 32/513 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes628,245
source_files_sampled513
oversized_source_files32

Machine-readable interfaces

20At Risk
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
0/40Runnable examples
Inputs used
example_dirs—
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

173GitHub stars
2contributors
433commits, last 12 months
2days since last push
14releases
1bus factor
0open issues
npm, PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 31 ⇿
0Stars
31Forks
11Releases

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.

0510152025303042026-072026-082026-08
Major 1Minor 4Patch 4
OpenSSF Scorecard 6.1 / 10
6.1aggregate

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 · 2026-09-11 05:33 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-Tests30 out of 30 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 0/28 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
0Contributorsproject has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
0Maintainedproject was created within the last 90 days. Please review its contents carefully
10Packagingpackaging workflow detected
4Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 4
10SASTSAST tool is run on all commits
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
7Vulnerabilities3 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 1
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPInumpy>=1.24pyproject.toml
All dependencies 113

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 112 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPInumpy—direct
npm@axe-core/playwright4.12.1indirect
npm@earendil-works/pi-coding-agent0.84.1indirect
npm@modelcontextprotocol/sdk1.30.0indirect
npm@playwright/test1.62.1indirect
npm@puppeteer/browsers3.1.0indirect
npm@tweenjs/tween.js25.0.0indirect
npm@types/node^24.0.0indirect
npmaccessor-fn1.5.3indirect
npmansi-regex6.2.2indirect
npmansi-styles6.2.3indirect
npmaxe-core4.12.1indirect
npmbezier-js6.1.4indirect
npmboolbase2.0.0indirect
npmcanvas-color-tracker1.3.2indirect
npmchromium-bidi17.0.2indirect
npmcliui9.0.1indirect
npmcss-select7.0.0indirect
npmcss-tree3.2.1indirect
npmcss-what8.0.0indirect
npmd3-array3.2.4indirect
npmd3-binarytree1.0.2indirect
npmd3-color3.1.0indirect
npmd3-dispatch3.0.1indirect
npmd3-drag3.0.0indirect
npmd3-ease3.0.1indirect
npmd3-force-3d3.0.6indirect
npmd3-format3.1.2indirect
npmd3-interpolate3.0.1indirect
npmd3-octree1.1.0indirect
npmd3-quadtree3.0.1indirect
npmd3-scale4.0.2indirect
npmd3-scale-chromatic3.1.0indirect
npmd3-selection3.0.0indirect
npmd3-time3.1.0indirect
npmd3-time-format4.1.0indirect
npmd3-timer3.0.1indirect
npmd3-transition3.0.1indirect
npmd3-zoom3.0.0indirect
npmdevtools-protocol0.0.1653615indirect
npmdom-serializer3.1.1indirect
npmdomelementtype3.0.0indirect
npmdomhandler6.0.1indirect
npmdomutils4.0.2indirect
npmemoji-regex10.6.0indirect
npmentities8.0.0indirect
npmescalade3.2.0indirect
npmfflate0.8.3indirect
npmfloat-tooltip1.7.5indirect
npmforce-graph1.51.4indirect
npmfsevents2.3.2indirect
npmget-caller-file2.0.5indirect
npmget-east-asian-width1.6.0indirect
npmhtmlparser212.0.0indirect
npmimpeccable3.6.0indirect
npmindex-array-by1.4.2indirect
npminternmap2.0.3indirect
npmkapsule1.16.3indirect
npmlilconfig3.1.3indirect
npmlodash-es4.18.1indirect
npmmarked18.0.9indirect
npmmdn-data2.27.1indirect
npmmitt3.0.1indirect
npmmodern-tar0.7.7indirect
npmnth-check3.0.1indirect
npmplaywright1.62.1indirect
npmplaywright-core1.62.1indirect
npmpreact10.29.8indirect
npmpuppeteer25.5.0indirect
npmpuppeteer-core25.5.0indirect
npmsource-map-js1.2.1indirect
npmstring-width7.2.0indirect
npmstring-width8.2.2indirect
npmstrip-ansi7.2.0indirect
npmtinycolor21.6.0indirect
npmtsx^4.20.0indirect
npmtypebox1.3.7indirect
npmtyped-query-selector2.12.2indirect
npmtypescript^5.8.0indirect
npmwebdriver-bidi-protocol0.4.2indirect
npmwrap-ansi9.0.2indirect
npmws8.21.3indirect
npmy18n5.0.8indirect
npmyargs18.1.0indirect
npmyargs-parser22.0.0indirect
npmzod3.25.76indirect
PyPIcryptography—indirect
PyPIfastapi—indirect
PyPIfaster-whisper—indirect
PyPIhttpx—indirect
PyPImcp—indirect
PyPIopenai-codex0.147.0indirect
PyPIpillow—indirect
PyPIpsycopg—indirect
PyPIpydantic—indirect
PyPIpydantic-settings—indirect
PyPIpypdf—indirect
PyPIpyright1.1.411indirect
PyPIpytesseract—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv—indirect
PyPIpython-multipart—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIsentence-transformers—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsqlcipher3-binary—indirect
PyPIsqlite-vec—indirect
PyPIstarlette—indirect
PyPItree-sitter—indirect
PyPItree-sitter-language-pack1.16.1indirect
PyPItyping-extensions—indirect
PyPIuvicorn—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:engraphis@1.7.3 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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with Coding-Dev-Tools/engraphis. Read them side by side →

100deepset-ai/haystackOpen-source AI orchestration framework for building context-engineered, production-ready LLM applications. Design modular pipelines and agent workflows with explicit control over retrieval, routing, memory, and generation. Built for scalable agents, RAG, multimodal applications, semantic search, and conversational systems.Exceptional98mem0ai/mem0The Memory Layer for AI Agents - Drop-in memory infrastructure for AI agents and apps. Context that persists. Built for production.Exceptional98ComposioHQ/composioComposio powers 1000+ toolkits, tool search, context management, authentication, and a sandboxed workbench to help you build AI agents that turn intent into action.Exceptional99awslabs/cli-agent-orchestratorMulti-agent orchestration for AI coding CLIs — Claude Code, Kiro, Codex, and more, coordinated in isolated tmux sessionsExceptional98langchain-ai/langgraphBuild resilient agents.Exceptional98strands-agents/toolsA set of tools that gives agents powerful capabilities.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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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