# OutlineFoundation/outline-apps — health index 87/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository OutlineFoundation/outline-apps by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 87 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/OutlineFoundation/outline-apps
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/OutlineFoundation/outline-apps
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/OutlineFoundation/outline-apps/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/o/OutlineFoundation/outline-apps.svg
- Inspected: 2026-08-28
- Methodology: metrics 2.10.0, report schema 0.34.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 21% | 72/100 | Good |
| Community & Adoption | 17% | 85/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 23% | 70/100 | Good |
| Engineering Quality | 19% | 86/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 45/100 | Weak |
| AI Readiness | 4% | 89/100 | Excellent |

The weighted overall 73 is calibrated to 87 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Outline Client and Manager, developed by Jigsaw. Outline Manager makes it easy to create your own VPN server. Outline Client lets you share access to your VPN with anyone in your network, giving them access to the free and open internet. |
| Classification | desktop, mobile, network-service |
| Homepage | https://getoutline.org/ |
| Primary language | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 9,236 |
| Forks | 1,457 |
| Created | 2018-03-13 |
| Last push | 2026-08-27 |
| Latest release | v1.10.1 |
| Commits (last year) | 108 |
| Bus factor | 3 |
| Topics | android, ios, macos, chromeos, windows, electron, linux, shadowsocks, cordova, outline, outline-vpn |

## Vitality — 72/100 (Good)

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

### Development activity — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Push recency | met | 36 / 36 | last push 0 days ago |
| Commit cadence | partial | 23.5 / 36 | 34/52 weeks with commits |
| Commit volume | met | 18 / 18 | 108 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

### Release discipline — 47/100 (Weak)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | not met | 0 / 36 | latest release 1256 days ago |
| Release cadence | partial | 19.8 / 27 | a release every ~69.5 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 1 days ago |

## Community & Adoption — 85/100 (Excellent)

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

### Popularity & adoption — 98/100 (Exceptional)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 9,236 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 1,457 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12.9 / 15 | 208 watchers |

### Community health — 70/100 (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 | not met | 0 / 6.3 | — |

## Sustainability & Governance — 70/100 (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) — 77/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 36 / 54 | 3 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 17.4 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 23% of commits |
| Contributor breadth | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | 53 contributors |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors | met | 10 / 10 | project has 17 contributing companies or organizations |

### Issue & PR responsiveness — 75/100 (Good)

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 26 / 42 | 62% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 24.6 / 30 | 1209/1477 decided PRs merged |
| Newcomer PR acceptance | excluded | 0 / 13 | no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 58/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 17.1 / 25 | 236 followers of OutlineFoundation |
| Track record | partial | 10.9 / 25 | 17 public repos, account ~0 yr old |

## Engineering Quality — 86/100 (Excellent)

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

### Engineering practices — 84/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 7 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.json |
| Pre-commit hooks | not met | 0 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 23 out of 23 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://getoutline.org/ |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 11 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 45/100 (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, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Binary-Artifacts | not met | 0 / 7.5 | binaries present in source code |
| 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 | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | 23 out of 23 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 17 contributing companies or organizations |
| 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 | met | 2.5 / 2.5 | license file detected |
| Maintained | met | 7.5 / 7.5 | 30 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | excluded | 0 / 5 | packaging workflow not detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 3 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |
| SAST | partial | 4.5 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | not met | 0 / 5 | security policy file not 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 | 251 existing vulnerabilities detected |

### Dependency advisories — 20/100 (At Risk)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 2815 resolved dependencies against OSV; 249 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 | 2.6 / 35 | 12 affected: minimist 1.2.0 (critical 9.8), electron-updater 4.6.5 (high 7.5), electron-updater 5.3.0 (high 7.5), +9 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 | 12.5 / 40 | 12 advisory-carrying package(s) unaddressed past 90 days; oldest published 2337 days ago |

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

1 resolved dependency(ies) are reported as malicious packages, but the registry no longer serves the resolved version, so nothing installable remains. Reported for the record and not scored.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| No dependency reported as a malicious package | met | 100 / 100 | 1 reported as malicious, but the registry no longer serves the resolved version — nothing installable remains |

### 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 — 89/100 (Excellent)

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 — 85/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, client/AGENTS.md, client/electron/AGENTS.md, client/go/outline/configregistry/AGENTS.md, client/src/cordova/android/AGENTS.md, client/src/cordova/apple/AGENTS.md, infrastructure/AGENTS.md, server_manager/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | met | 40 / 40 | 93 of 100 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body) |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 88/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | Taskfile.yml, client/Taskfile.yml, client/go/Taskfile.yml, third_party/tap-windows6/src/MAKEFILE |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.json |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | client/capacitor/plugins/capacitor-plugin-outline/tsconfig.json, client/capacitor/tsconfig.json, client/electron/tsconfig.json, client/tsconfig.json, client/web/tsconfig.json, infrastructure/tsconfig.json, server_manager/electron/tsconfig.json, server_manager/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | met | 10 / 10 | 28 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited |
| Automated maintenance | not met | 0 / 8 | no automated dependency updates observed |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 6 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 6 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | met | 45 / 45 | TypeScript (statically typed) |
| Manageable file sizes | met | 55 / 55 | 0/360 source files over 60KB |

## Collection warnings

- Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
- Resolved dependency list truncated to 3000 of 3064 packages (counts remain complete)

## 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