Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-09-05 22:23 UTC

KevRojo / Dulus

Dulus Ai — Free Agentic AI, Making Gemini web cappable of running bash commands in your terminal! [Gui, Web, Cli, Telegram, 2,000 MCP, 100K Skills . LiteLLM (100+ providers), local models via Ollama, /lang in 34 languages, Mesa Redonda, I create the first utility coin that can be used 100% as AI quota or Fuel, is called $Dulus

PythonGPL-3.0★ 358 stars⑂ 21 forkssince May 2026View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolDesktop applicationNetwork serviceMCP serverLibraryhow this is determined

KevRojo/Dulus holds a health index of 77 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Vitality (86/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (50/100). It was last updated today. 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

Kevin RojoPersonal account
226 followers5 public repossince Oct 2014Dulus AI

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

86Excellent · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
12.5/36Commit cadence — 18/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 615 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year615
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year18

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 45 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 4 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~3 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count45
latest_release_tagv3.13.6
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release4
mean_days_between_releases3
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

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

62Moderate · 17% of overall
How it's scored
41.4/60Stars — 358 stars
10.8/25Forks — 21 forks
0/15Watchers — 2 watchers
Inputs used
forks21
stars358
watchers2
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized 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_badges6
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_servicesgithub.com, shields.io
has_pull_request_templateno
How it's scored
52/80Monthly downloads — 7,957 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesdulus
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads7,957
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?

57Moderate · 23% of overall
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
0.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 99% of commits
2.7/13.5Contributor breadth — 2 contributors
3/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled2
top_contributor_share0.992
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
0/30PR acceptance — no decided pull requests or no data
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_prs0
open_issues0
closed_issues3
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs0
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): PR acceptance, Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
16.9/25Owner reach — 226 followers of KevRojo
17.7/25Track record — 5 public repos, account ~11 yr old
Inputs used
followers226
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginKevRojo
public_repos5
account_age_days4,350
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 1 days ago
20/20Version history — 246 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdulus
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish1

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

76Good · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 2 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests. Remaining weights renormalized.

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://kevrojo.github.io/Dulus/
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 7 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsagent, ai, assistant, openai, dulus, cli, claude
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://kevrojo.github.io/Dulus/
docs_sitehttps://kevrojo.github.io/Dulus/
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
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
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — no data
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
0.8/2.5Contributors — project has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
0/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — no update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained — 30 commit(s) and 2 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 — no SAST tool detected
5/5Security-Policy — security policy file detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
6.8/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 22 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.7
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): CI-Tests, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
5.4/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — 1 affected: chromadb 1.5.9 (critical 9.8)
32.1/40No advisories left outstanding — 1 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 110 days ago
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories5
affected_packages1
assessed_packages144
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1
direct_affected_packages0
Matched the pypi:dulus@3.14.7 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 144 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.

50Moderate · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 82 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.911
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — cli_animations/py.typed, pyrightconfig.json
10/10Reproducible environment — Dockerfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
0/8Automated maintenance — no automated dependency updates observed
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configscli_animations/py.typed, pyrightconfig.json
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (cli_animations/py.typed, pyrightconfig.json)
53.4/55Manageable file sizes — 7/248 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes668,497
source_files_sampled248
oversized_source_files7
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)
20/20MCP server
40/40Runnable examples — demos
Inputs used
example_dirsdemos
has_mcp_signalyes
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_ofnetwork-service

Key facts

358GitHub stars
2contributors
615commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
45releases
1bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • GitHub dependency-graph SBOM unavailable (404); the dependency graph may be disabled for this repository

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 21 ⇿
0Stars
21Forks
4Releases

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.

48121620242162026-052026-062026-07
Major 0Minor 0Patch 4
OpenSSF Scorecard 4.7 / 10
4.7aggregate

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 · 2026-09-05 22:23 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
n/aCI-Testsno pull request found
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
0Code-ReviewFound 0/30 approved changesets -- score normalized to 0
3Contributorsproject has 1 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 3
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
0Dependency-Update-Toolno update tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 2 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
0SASTno SAST tool detected
10Security-Policysecurity policy file detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
9Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
0Vulnerabilities22 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 30
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIanthropic>=0.40.0pyproject.toml
PyPIopenai>=1.30.0pyproject.toml
PyPIhttpx>=0.27.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrequests>=2.31.0pyproject.toml
PyPItomli>=2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIrich>=13.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIprompt_toolkit>=3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIFlask>=3.1.3pyproject.toml
PyPIbubblewrap-cli>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIcustomtkinter>=5.2.0pyproject.toml
PyPIPillow>=10.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItyping-extensions>=4.10.0pyproject.toml
PyPIpyttsx3—pyproject.toml
PyPIcomposio>=1.0.0rc2pyproject.toml
PyPIbeautifulsoup4>=4.12.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsegno>=1.6.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsentry-sdk>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPItruststore>=0.9pyproject.toml
PyPIpytesseract>=0.3.10pyproject.toml
PyPIdulus-bar>=0.3.7pyproject.toml
PyPImcp>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIuv>=0.4.0pyproject.toml
PyPIsse-starlette>=2.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIstarlette>=0.38.0pyproject.toml
PyPIposthog>=3.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPImempalace>=3.3.4pyproject.toml
PyPIsounddevice—pyproject.toml
PyPIelevenlabs>=1.0.0pyproject.toml
PyPIplaywright>=1.40.0pyproject.toml
PyPIlitellm>=1.50.0pyproject.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

Dependency advisories 1

Installing pypi:dulus@3.14.7 pulls in 144 packages, direct and transitive: 1 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
chromadb1.5.9indirectcritical5—

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 v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

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