# Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork — health index 80/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 80 out of 100, placing it in the Excellent 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/Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/d/Devin-AXIS/iPolloWork.svg
- Inspected: 2026-09-18
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 82/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 93/100 | Exceptional |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 49/100 | Weak |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 68/100 | Good |
| Security | 16% | 49/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 79/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 68 is calibrated to 80 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Enterprise-grade, local-first Agent Workbench for people and agent teams. A unified multi-engine workspace for Codex Harness, DeepSeek Harness, and OpenCode, with unified plugins and Skills, multi-agent projects and tasks, and editable code, documents, presentations, design, and video. |
| Classification | web-ui, desktop, mcp-server, network-service, cli |
| Homepage | https://www.ipollo.ai/ |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| Stars | 6,323 |
| Forks | 1,213 |
| Created | 2025-08-25 |
| Last push | 2026-09-18 |
| Latest release | v0.50.12 |
| Commits (last year) | 1,373 |
| Bus factor | 2 |
| Topics | ai-agents, opencode, deepseek-harness, dsh-plugin, visual-editor, agent-skills, claude-code, codex, hermes-agent, ai-work, self-evolving-ai, agent-collaboration, opencode-plugin, enterprise-agent-workspace, ipollowork-plugin, ipollowork-skill, codex-plugin, multi-agent-workspace |

## Vitality — 82/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 21% of the overall index.

### Development activity — 76/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 12.5 / 36 | 18/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 1373 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 33 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 18 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~1.9 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 10 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 0 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 93/100 (Exceptional)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 17% of the overall index.

### Popularity & adoption — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 6,323 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,213 forks |
| Watchers | met | 15 / 15 | 638 watchers |

### Community health — 86/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | partial | 16.9 / 22.5 | license file present, not a recognized license |
| CONTRIBUTING guide | met | 18 / 18 | — |
| Code of conduct | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 49/100 (Weak)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 23% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 52/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 25.2 / 54 | 2 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 13.7 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 39% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 16 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | not met | 0 / 10 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 44/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 9.7 / 42 | 23% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 27.5 / 30 | 270/295 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | partial | 6.5 / 13 | 1/2 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | not met | 0 / 15 | Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |

### Ownership & stewardship — 51/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | partial | 10 / 30 | personal (user) account |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to user accounts |
| Owner reach | partial | 19.1 / 25 | 448 followers of Devin-AXIS |
| Track record | partial | 11.4 / 25 | 18 public repos, account ~1 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 68/100 (Good)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 19% of the overall index.

### Engineering practices — 54/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 23 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | not met | 0 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | met | 6.4 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 20 | 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://www.ipollo.ai/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 18 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 49/100 (Weak)

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 — 51/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | internal 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 |
| CI-Tests | not met | 0 / 2.5 | 0 out of 7 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0 |
| CII-Best-Practices | partial | 1.2 / 2.5 | badge detected: Passing |
| Code-Review | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Found 0/22 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0 |
| Contributors | not met | 0 / 2.5 | project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0 |
| Dangerous-Workflow | met | 10 / 10 | no dangerous workflow patterns detected |
| Dependency-Update-Tool | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | update tool detected |
| Fuzzing | not met | 0 / 5 | project is not fuzzed |
| License | partial | 2.2 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 25 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| SAST | partial | 3.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | not met | 0 / 7.5 | Project has not signed or included provenance with any releases. |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 234 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 43/100 (Weak)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2774 resolved dependencies against OSV; 75 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 | 6.4 / 35 | 5 affected: drizzle-orm 0.45.1 (high 7.5), nodemailer 8.0.7 (high 7.5), sharp 0.34.5 (high 8.4), +2 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 | 25.5 / 40 | 3 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 1243 days ago |

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

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

## AI Readiness — 79/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight: agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but its absence must never gate the top of the scale (calibration saturates at raw 91, so 100/100 remains reachable with AI Readiness at zero).

### Agent context & guidance — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, apps/app/public/design-systems/_schema/AGENTS.md, examples/plugin-packages/douyin-ops/AGENTS.md, examples/plugin-packages/xiaohongshu-ops/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | met | 15 / 15 | llms.txt served by the project website (https://bun.sh/llms.txt) |
| Legible commit history | partial | 24.5 / 40 | 46 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 61/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | partial | 12.6 / 18 | examples/microsandbox-ipollowork-rust/Cargo.toml (toolchain convention, no task runner) |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | not met | 0 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | apps/app/tsconfig.json, apps/orchestrator/tsconfig.json, apps/server/tsconfig.json, apps/ui-demo/tsconfig.json, examples/plugin-packages/xiaohongshu-ops/skills/xhs-ops-worker/app/tsconfig.json, external-plugins/deepseek-harness/design-studio/studio/tsconfig.json, external-plugins/deepseek-harness/design-studio/tsconfig.json, external-plugins/deepseek-harness/ppt-studio/tsconfig.json, external-plugins/deepseek-harness/video-studio/studio/tsconfig.json, external-plugins/deepseek-harness/video-studio/tsconfig.json, packages/design-studio/tsconfig.json, packages/email/tsconfig.json, packages/install-config/tsconfig.json, packages/types/tsconfig.json, packages/video-studio/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/cli/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/core/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/engine/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/lint/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/parsers/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/player/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/producer/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/sdk/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/shader-transitions/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/studio-server/tsconfig.json, vendor/hyperframes/packages/studio/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

### Code legibility for models — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 52.4 / 55 | 70/1502 source files over 60KB |

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

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

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Could not fetch npm package 'ipollowork-server' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'ipollowork-ui-mcp' from its registry
- Could not fetch npm package 'ipollowork' 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