Public record
Software health reportschema 0.31.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-04 22:10 UTC

Comfy-Org / ComfyUI

The most powerful and modular diffusion model GUI, api and backend with a graph/nodes interface.

PythonGPL-3.0★ 123,626 stars⑂ 14,611 forkssince Jan 2023View on GitHub ↗

Comfy-Org/ComfyUI holds a health index of 84 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent band. It scores highest on Vitality (100/100) and lowest on Security (52/100). It was last updated today. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

84
overall / 100
Excellent

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.

84
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 71 is calibrated to 84 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Comfy OrgOrganization
3,072 followers77 public repossince Apr 2024

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIComfyUI0.0.1-1782 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

100Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,964 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintainedno data
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,964
human_commit_share0.99
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases100 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 1 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~6.9 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releasesno data
Inputs used
releases_count100
latest_release_tagv0.30.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release1
mean_days_between_releases6.9

Community & Adoption

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

86Excellent · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

100Exceptional
How it's scored
60/60Stars123,626 stars
25/25Forks14,611 forks
15/15Watchers764 watchers
Inputs used
forks14,611
stars123,626
watchers764
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5Licenserecognized license (GPL-3.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
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?

53Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
8.9/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 60% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth100 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsno data
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled100
top_contributor_share0.604
How it's scored
23.4/42Issue resolution56% of issues closed
21.5/30PR acceptance3,067/4,281 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance0/5 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Reviewno data
Inputs used
merged_prs3,067
open_issues3,989
closed_issues4,991
prs_merged_7d41
prs_decided_7d60
prs_merged_30d41
prs_decided_30d60
issue_closed_ratio0.556
closed_unmerged_prs1,214
first_time_authors_30d5
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d5
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domainverified-domain status not read for this organization
25/25Owner reach3,072 followers of Comfy-Org
17.6/25Track record77 public repos, account ~2 yr old
Inputs used
followers3,072
owner_typeOrganization
is_verified
owner_loginComfy-Org
public_repos77
account_age_days846
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable1 package(s) on pypi
4/35Publish recencylatest publish 782 days ago
4/20Version history1 published versions
0/20Not deprecatedComfyUI: deprecated/yanked on the registry
Inputs used
packagesComfyUI
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedyes
min_days_since_publish782

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows27 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Testsno data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://www.comfy.org/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics6 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsstable-diffusion, pytorch, ai, python, comfy, comfyui
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://www.comfy.org/
docs_sitehttps://www.comfy.org/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

52Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
30/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
0/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfilespublished library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles
manifestspyproject.toml, requirements.txt, tests-unit/requirements.txt
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyyes
has_dependabot_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriestransitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages6
unassessed_packages34
affected_by_severitynone
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 6 resolved dependencies against OSV. 34 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.

58Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructionsAGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history82 of 99 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.828
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes23,040
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
0/11Static type checking
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practiceno agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenanceno automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesno data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable codePython without a type-check config
53/55Manageable file sizes27/731 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes213,669
source_files_sampled731
oversized_source_files27
How it's scored
40/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)openapi.yaml
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_filesopenapi.yaml
interfaces_expected_of
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

123,626GitHub stars
100contributors
1,964commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
100releases
1bus factor
3,989open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 24 authors (cap 12)
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (2026/08/04 22:09:45 Warning: PATs stored in env variables GITHUB_AUTH_TOKEN and GITHUB_TOKEN differ. Scorecard will use the former.); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 14,611 ⇿
0Stars
14,611Forks
6Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

13,50013,75014,00014,25014,50014,75014,611362026-062026-072026-08
Major 0Minor 5Patch 1
All dependencies 40

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 40 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaiohttpindirect
PyPIalembicindirect
PyPIavindirect
PyPIblake3indirect
PyPIcomfy-aimdo0.4.11indirect
PyPIcomfy-angleindirect
PyPIcomfy-kitchen0.2.26indirect
PyPIcomfyui-embedded-docs0.5.9indirect
PyPIcomfyui-frontend-package1.47.12indirect
PyPIcomfyui-manager4.2.2indirect
PyPIcomfyui-workflow-templates0.11.27indirect
PyPIeinopsindirect
PyPIfilelockindirect
PyPIkorniaindirect
PyPInumpyindirect
PyPIpillowindirect
PyPIpsutilindirect
PyPIpydanticindirect
PyPIpydantic-settingsindirect
PyPIpyopenglindirect
PyPIpytestindirect
PyPIpytest-aiohttpindirect
PyPIpytest-asyncioindirect
PyPIpyyamlindirect
PyPIrequestsindirect
PyPIsafetensorsindirect
PyPIscipyindirect
PyPIsentencepieceindirect
PyPIsimpleevalindirect
PyPIspandrelindirect
PyPIsqlalchemyindirect
PyPItokenizersindirect
PyPItorchindirect
PyPItorchaudioindirect
PyPItorchsdeindirect
PyPItorchvisionindirect
PyPItqdmindirect
PyPItransformersindirect
PyPIwebsocket-clientindirect
PyPIyarlindirect
Dependency advisories 0

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 6 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct. 34 could not be assessed — no resolved version, an unsupported ecosystem, or beyond the reported package list.

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.

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 v0.31.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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