# PrefectHQ/prefect — health index 91/100 (Excellent)

> Inspection of the public repository PrefectHQ/prefect by inspect.software. It holds a health index of 91 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/PrefectHQ/prefect
- Report page: https://inspect.software/software/PrefectHQ/prefect
- Full JSON report: https://inspect.software/api/repositories/PrefectHQ/prefect/report
- Badge: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/inspect-software/badges/main/v1/p/PrefectHQ/prefect.svg
- Inspected: 2026-07-21
- Methodology: metrics 1.13.0, report schema 0.17.0 (https://inspect.software/methodology.md)

## Category summary

| Category | Weight | Index | Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitality | 22% | 100/100 | Excellent |
| Community & Adoption | 18% | 95/100 | Excellent |
| Sustainability & Governance | 24% | 89/100 | Excellent |
| Engineering Quality | 20% | 92/100 | Excellent |
| Security | 16% | 74/100 | Good |
| AI Readiness | not counted | 78/100 | Good |

## Repository facts

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Description | Prefect is a workflow orchestration framework for building resilient data pipelines in Python. |
| Homepage | https://prefect.io |
| Primary language | Python |
| License | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 23,442 |
| Forks | 2,418 |
| Created | 2018-06-29 |
| Last push | 2026-07-20 |
| Latest release | 3.7.9.dev4 |
| Commits (last year) | 2,473 |
| Bus factor | 7 |
| Topics | python, workflow, data-engineering, data-science, workflow-engine, prefect, infrastructure, ml-ops, data-ops, automation, orchestration, data, observability, pipeline |

## Published packages

| Registry | Package | Latest | Monthly downloads |
|---|---|---|---|
| pypi | prefect | 3.7.8 | — |
| pypi | prefect-client | 3.7.8 | 392,580 |

## Vitality — 100/100 (Excellent)

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping? Weight: 22% of the overall index.

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

| 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 | 2473 commits in the last year |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained | met | 10 / 10 | 30 commit(s) and 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |

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

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ships releases | met | 27 / 27 | 100 releases published |
| Release recency | met | 36 / 36 | latest release 2 days ago |
| Release cadence | met | 27 / 27 | a release every ~1.7 days |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 10 | no releases found |

### Abandonment — 100/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project is still maintained | met | 100 / 100 | maintenance record not established from the collected data |

## Community & Adoption — 95/100 (Excellent)

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors? Weight: 18% of the overall index.

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stars | met | 60 / 60 | 23,442 stars |
| Forks | met | 25 / 25 | 2,418 forks |
| Watchers | partial | 12.7 / 15 | 197 watchers |

### Community health — 92/100 (Excellent)

| 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 | met | 13.5 / 13.5 | — |
| Issue template | not met | 0 / 7.2 | — |
| PR template | met | 6.3 / 6.3 | — |

### Ecosystem adoption (downloads) — 93/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monthly downloads | partial | 74.6 / 80 | 392,580 downloads/month across pypi |
| Registry dependents | excluded | 0 / 20 | not reported by this ecosystem |

## Sustainability & Governance — 89/100 (Excellent)

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep? Weight: 24% of the overall index.

### Maintainer resilience (bus factor) — 93/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bus factor | partial | 51.3 / 54 | 7 contributor(s) cover half of all commits |
| Commit distribution | partial | 18.3 / 22.5 | top contributor authored 19% 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 — 89/100 (Excellent)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue resolution | partial | 41.5 / 46.8 | 89% of issues closed |
| PR acceptance | partial | 32.6 / 38.2 | 12463/14625 decided PRs merged |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review | met | 15 / 15 | all changesets reviewed |

### Ownership & stewardship — 75/100 (Good)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership backing | met | 30 / 30 | organization-owned |
| Verified domain | not met | 0 / 20 | — |
| Owner reach | partial | 21.3 / 25 | 922 followers of PrefectHQ |
| Track record | partial | 23.8 / 25 | 41 public repos, account ~8 yr old |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Published & resolvable | met | 25 / 25 | 2 package(s) on pypi |
| Publish recency | met | 35 / 35 | latest publish 11 days ago |
| Version history | met | 20 / 20 | 843 published versions |
| Not deprecated | met | 20 / 20 | active, not deprecated or yanked |

## Engineering Quality — 92/100 (Excellent)

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place? Weight: 20% of the overall index.

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| CI workflows | met | 24 / 24 | 43 workflow(s) |
| Tests present | met | 24 / 24 | — |
| Linter config | met | 16 / 16 | .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.json, biome.json, eslint.config.js |
| Pre-commit hooks | met | 9.6 / 9.6 | — |
| .editorconfig | not met | 0 / 6.4 | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests | met | 20 / 20 | 30 out of 30 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://prefect.io |
| Repository description | met | 10 / 10 | — |
| Topics | met | 10 / 10 | 14 topics |
| Wiki | not met | 0 / 10 | — |

## Security — 74/100 (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 — 67/100 (Moderate)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): 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 | 30 out of 30 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 | 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 3 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10 |
| Packaging | met | 5 / 5 | packaging workflow detected |
| Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 0.5 / 5 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |
| SAST | partial | 4 / 5 | SAST tool detected but not run on all commits |
| Security-Policy | met | 5 / 5 | security policy file detected |
| Signed-Releases | excluded | 0 / 7.5 | no releases found |
| Token-Permissions | not met | 0 / 7.5 | detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions |
| Vulnerabilities | not met | 0 / 7.5 | 49 existing vulnerabilities detected |

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

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:prefect@3.7.8 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 103 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 (Excellent)

| 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 (Excellent)

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 — 78/100 (Good)

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? An independent, experimental badge — weight 0.0, so it is surfaced on its own and does not affect the overall health score.

### Agent context & guidance — 75/100 (Good)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agent instructions | met | 45 / 45 | AGENTS.md, client/AGENTS.md, docs/AGENTS.md, integration-tests/AGENTS.md, src/integrations/AGENTS.md, src/integrations/prefect-aws/AGENTS.md, src/integrations/prefect-dbt/prefect_dbt/core/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/blocks/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/cli/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/client/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/concurrency/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/deployments/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/events/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/logging/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/runner/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/server/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/settings/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/testing/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/asyncutils/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/callables/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/engine/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/filesystem/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/processutils/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/schema_tools/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/utilities/templating/AGENTS.md, src/prefect/workers/AGENTS.md, tests/AGENTS.md, tests/fixtures/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/e2e/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/api/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/auth/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/components/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/graphs/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/hooks/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/mocks/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/routes/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/storybook/AGENTS.md, ui-v2/src/utils/AGENTS.md |
| Machine-readable docs (llms.txt) | not met | 0 / 15 | — |
| Legible commit history | excluded | 0 / 40 | no data |

### Verify loop (build / test / typecheck) — 87/100 (Excellent)

Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice. Remaining weights renormalized.

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-command bootstrap | met | 18 / 18 | docs/justfile, justfile, src/integrations/prefect-aws/infra/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-aws/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-azure/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-bitbucket/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-dask/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-databricks/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-dbt/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-docker/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-email/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-gcp/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-github/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-gitlab/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-kubernetes/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-ray/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-redis/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-shell/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-slack/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-snowflake/justfile, src/integrations/prefect-sqlalchemy/justfile |
| Automated tests | met | 22 / 22 | — |
| Lint / format config | met | 11 / 11 | .eslintrc.js, .eslintrc.json, biome.json, eslint.config.js |
| Static type checking | met | 11 / 11 | src/integrations/prefect-aws/prefect_aws/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-azure/prefect_azure/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-dask/prefect_dask/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-kubernetes/integration_tests/src/prefect_kubernetes_integration_tests/py.typed, src/prefect/py.typed, ui-v2/tsconfig.json, ui/tsconfig.json |
| Reproducible environment | met | 10 / 10 | Dockerfile, lockfile |
| Demonstrated agent practice | excluded | 0 / 10 | no data |
| Automated maintenance | partial | 5 / 8 | dependency automation configured, none observed in the sampled commits |
| OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies | partial | 1 / 10 | dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 1 |

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

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type-checkable code | partial | 27 / 45 | Python with type-check config (src/integrations/prefect-aws/prefect_aws/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-azure/prefect_azure/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-dask/prefect_dask/py.typed, src/integrations/prefect-kubernetes/integration_tests/src/prefect_kubernetes_integration_tests/py.typed, src/prefect/py.typed, ui-v2/tsconfig.json, ui/tsconfig.json) |
| Manageable file sizes | partial | 54 / 55 | 66/3509 source files over 60KB |

### Machine-readable interfaces — 60/100 (Moderate)

| Criterion | Status | Points | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) | not met | 0 / 40 | — |
| MCP server | met | 20 / 20 | — |
| Runnable examples | met | 40 / 40 | examples, recipes |

## 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