# Nixtla/nixtla — health index 92/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository Nixtla/nixtla by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 92 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/Nixtla/nixtla
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/Nixtla/nixtla
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/Nixtla/nixtla/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/n/Nixtla/nixtla.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-13
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.31.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 96/100 | Exceptional |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 84/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 74/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 85/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 46/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 76/100 | Good |

The weighted overall 78 is calibrated to 92 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | TimeGPT-1: production ready pre-trained Time Series Foundation Model  for forecasting and anomaly detection. Generative pretrained transformer for time series trained on over 100B data points. It's capable of accurately predicting various domains such as retail, electricity, finance, and IoT with just a few lines of code 🚀. |
| Classification | library |
| Homepage | https://www.nixtla.io/docs |
| Primary language | Jupyter Notebook |
| Stars | 3,985 |
| Forks | 332 |
| Created | 2021-09-23 |
| Last push | 2026-08-10 |
| Latest release | v0.8.0 |
| Commits (last year) | 142 |
| Bus factor | 1 |
| Topics | time-series, time-series-forecasting, deep-learning, forecasting, gpt, generative-ai-time-series, timegpt, anomaly-detection, artificial-intelligence, gpts, llm, foundation-models, llms, agentic-ai, agent |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | nixtla | 0.8.0 | — |

## Vitality — 96/100 (Exceptional)

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

### Development activity — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 2 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 29.8 / 36 | 43/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 142 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 49 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 23 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~29.2 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | last human commit 11 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 84/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | partial | 58.4 / 60 | 3,985 stars |
| Forks | partial | 21 / 25 | 332 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 8.7 / 15 | 38 watchers |

### Community health — 79/100 (Good)

| 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 | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 74/100 (Good)

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) — 35/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 9 / 54 | 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 8.6 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 62% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 24 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 78/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 32.2 / 42 | 77% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.3 / 30 | 473/585 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | excluded | 0 / 15 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Ownership & stewardship — 97/100 (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 | partial | 24.8 / 25 | 2,834 followers of Nixtla |
| Track record | partial | 22.6 / 25 | 40 public repos, account ~5 yr old |

### Package maintenance — 100/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 1 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 23 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 28 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 85/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 92/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 8 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 | excluded | 0 / 20 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Documentation — 75/100 (Good)

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

## Security — 46/100 (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 — 33/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dependency lockfiles. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security policy (SECURITY.md) | not met | 0 / 30 | — |
| Dependabot config | met | 25 / 25 | — |
| Dependency lockfiles | excluded | 0 / 25 | published library — lockfiles are an application concern, not expected |
| CodeQL workflow | not met | 0 / 20 | — |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:nixtla@0.8.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 22 packages. 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 | met | 25 / 25 | no indirect dependency carries a known advisory |
| 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 — 76/100 (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 | 56 of 65 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 93/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Makefile, experiments/azure-automl-forecasting/Makefile, experiments/foundation-time-series-arena/Makefile, experiments/lag-llama/Makefile, experiments/prophet/Makefile, experiments/vn1-competition/Makefile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | — |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | nixtla/py.typed |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | devcontainer, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | partial | 4 / 10 | 2 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | met | 8 / 8 | 35 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | excluded | 0 / 10 | OpenSSF Scorecard unavailable |

### Code legibility for models — 81/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Jupyter Notebook with type-check config (nixtla/py.typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 53.9 / 55 | 2/103 source files over 60KB |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

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

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- OpenSSF Scorecard timed out after 240s; skipping Scorecard checks

## 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