# NVIDIA/cudf — health index 99/100 (Exceptional)

> Inspection of the public repository NVIDIA/cudf by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 99 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional 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/NVIDIA/cudf
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/NVIDIA/cudf
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/NVIDIA/cudf/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/n/NVIDIA/cudf.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-12
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 100/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 88/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 92/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 65/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 71/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 89 is calibrated to 99 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | cuDF - GPU DataFrame Library |
| Classification | plugin |
| Homepage | https://docs.rapids.ai/api/cudf/stable/ |
| Primary language | C++ |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 9,726 |
| Forks | 1,089 |
| Created | 2017-05-07 |
| Last push | 2026-08-12 |
| Latest release | v26.08.00 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,842 |
| Bus factor | 11 |
| Topics | gpu, rapids, cudf, arrow, cuda, pandas, dataframe, dask, data-analysis, data-science, pydata, cpp, python |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| maven | ai.rapids:cudf | 26.08.0 | — |
| pypi | cudf | 0.6.1.post1 | 2,882 |
| pypi | custreamz | 0.0.1 | 10 |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Development activity — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| 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 | 2842 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 72 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 7 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~40.4 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 9 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 97/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 9,726 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,089 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12.1 / 15 | 150 watchers |

### Community health — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | — |
| License | met | 22.5 / 22.5 | recognized license (Apache-2.0) |
| 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 — 96/100 (Exceptional)

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) — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | met | 54 / 54 | 11 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 20.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 8% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 100 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 16 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 91/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 35.9 / 42 | 85% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 26.9 / 30 | 13970/15566 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | met | 13 / 13 | 1/1 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 100/100 (Exceptional)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | excluded | 0 / 20 | verified-domain status not read for this organization |
| Owner reach | met | 25 / 25 | 28,896 followers of NVIDIA |
| Track record | met | 25 / 25 | 789 public repos, account ~14 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 92/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 94/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 13 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | — |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 29 out of 29 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10 |

### Documentation — 90/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| README | met | 30 / 30 | — |
| Documentation directory | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Documentation / homepage site | met | 15 / 15 | https://docs.rapids.ai/api/cudf/stable/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 13 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 65/100 (Good)

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 — 56/100 (Moderate)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | no binaries found in the repo |
| Branch-Protection | partial | 3.8 / 7.5 | branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches |
| CI-Tests | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 29 out of 29 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 | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | all changesets reviewed |
| Contributors | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | project has 16 contributing companies or organizations |
| Dangerous-Workflow | not met | 0 / 10 | 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 | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 4 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |
| 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 | partial | 5.2 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 108 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 100/100 (Exceptional)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 21 resolved dependencies against OSV; 49 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 | met | 35 / 35 | no direct dependency carries a known advisory |
| 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 | excluded | 0 / 40 | no advisory carries a publication date |

### 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 |

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

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 — 71/100 (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 — 40/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | not met | 0 / 45 | no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 97 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 72/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | docs/cudf/Makefile, docs/dask_cudf/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | python/cudf_polars/cudf_polars/py.typed, python/pylibcudf/pylibcudf/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, Dockerfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | not met | 0 / 10 | no agent-authored commits among the last 100 |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | not met | 0 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | C++ (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.6 / 55 | 70/2754 source files over 60KB |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | excluded | 0 / 40 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| MCP server | excluded | 0 / 20 | not applicable to this kind of software |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, notebooks, recipes |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 27 authors (cap 12)
- maven package 'ai.rapids:cudf' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rapidsai/cudf); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- pypi package 'cudf' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rapidsai/dask-cuda); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch pypi package 'libcudf' from its registry
- pypi package 'custreamz' points at a different repository (https://github.com/rapidsai/dask-cuda); excluded from ecosystem scoring
- Could not fetch pypi package 'dask-cudf' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'pylibcudf' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'cudf_kafka' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'cudf-polars' from its registry
- Could not fetch pypi package 'cudf-streaming' from its registry
- deps.dev does not index maven:ai.rapids:cudf@26.08.0; advisories assessed against the repository dependency graph instead

## 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