Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 10:17 UTC

ROCm / rocBLAS

[DEPRECATED] Moved to ROCm/rocm-libraries repo

C++ · Shell · FortranCustom license★ 401 stars⑂ 194 forkssince Oct 2015View on GitHub ↗
#blas#rocm#hip

ROCm/rocBLAS holds a health index of 75 out of 100, placing it in the Good band. It scores highest on Sustainability & Governance (85/100) and lowest on Security (51/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

75
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.

75
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 65 is calibrated to 75 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

AMD ROCm™ SoftwareOrganization
2,452 followers406 public repossince Aug 2016

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

58Moderate · 21% of overall

Development activity

36Weak
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
0/36Commit cadence — 0/52 weeks with commits
0/18Commit volume — 0 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
commits_last_year0
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year0

Release discipline

90Excellent
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 91 releases published
27/36Release recency — latest release 91 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~28.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count91
latest_release_tagrocm-7.2.4
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release91
mean_days_between_releases28.2
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?

71Good · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

71Good
How it's scored
42.2/60Stars — 401 stars
19/25Forks — 194 forks
9.6/15Watchers — 55 watchers
Inputs used
forks194
stars401
watchers55
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

71Good
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5License — license file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateyes

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

85Excellent · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

83Excellent
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
16.3/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 28% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.275

Issue & PR responsiveness

92Excellent
How it's scored
42/42Issue resolution — 100% of issues closed
25.7/30PR acceptance — 1,265/1,478 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
12/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 23/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
Inputs used
merged_prs1,265
open_issues0
closed_issues172
prs_merged_7d0
prs_decided_7d0
prs_merged_30d0
prs_decided_30d0
issue_closed_ratio1
closed_unmerged_prs213
first_time_authors_30d0
first_time_prs_merged_30d0
first_time_prs_decided_30d0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

79Good
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
24.4/25Owner reach — 2,452 followers of ROCm
25/25Track record — 406 public repos, account ~10 yr old
Inputs used
followers2,452
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginROCm
public_repos406
account_age_days3,658

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

54Moderate · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

24At Risk
How it's scored
0/24CI workflows
24/24Tests present
0/16Linter config
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 0 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_cino
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configno
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

100Exceptional
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsblas, rocm, hip
has_wikiyes
homepagehttps://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries
docs_sitehttps://github.com/ROCm/rocm-libraries
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

51Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

39Weak
How it's scored
6.8/7.5Binary-Artifacts — binaries present in source code
2.2/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0/2.5CI-Tests — 0 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
6/7.5Code-Review — Found 23/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 6 contributing companies or organizations
0/10Dangerous-Workflow — no data
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5License — license file detected
0/7.5Maintained — 0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — no data
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — no data
0/7.5Vulnerabilities — 67 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated13
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive5
scorecard_aggregate3.9
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Dangerous-Workflow, Packaging, Pinned-Dependencies, Signed-Releases, Token-Permissions. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
0/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — transitive set not separable from development and test dependencies in this scope
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories108
affected_packages14
assessed_packages93
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitycritical 1, high 9, moderate 3, low 1
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Indirect dependencies free of known advisories, No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched 93 resolved dependencies against OSV. 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.

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.

68Good · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

40Weak
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 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share0.837
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

66Good
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — scripts/utilities/check_for_pretuned_sizes_c/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
0/11Lint / format config
11/11Static type checking — C++ (statically typed)
0/10Reproducible environment
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no agent-authored commits among the last 100
8/8Automated maintenance — 2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_filesscripts/utilities/check_for_pretuned_sizes_c/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configno
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share0
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

99Exceptional
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable code — C++ (statically typed)
54.2/55Manageable file sizes — 17/1,237 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes1,499,860
source_files_sampled1,237
oversized_source_files17

Machine-readable interfaces

100Exceptional
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — samples
Inputs used
example_dirssamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

401GitHub stars
99contributors
0commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
91releases
4bus factor
0open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 194 ⇿
0Stars
194Forks
89Releases

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.

0408012016020019442017-052022-012026-08
Major 1Minor 4Patch 6

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 3.9 / 10
3.9aggregate

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 · 2026-08-28 10:16 UTC

9Binary-Artifactsbinaries present in source code
3Branch-Protectionbranch protection is not maximal on development and all release branches
0CI-Tests0 out of 24 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 0
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
8Code-ReviewFound 23/26 approved changesets -- score normalized to 8
10Contributorsproject has 6 contributing companies or organizations
n/aDangerous-Workflowno workflows found
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
0Maintained0 commit(s) and 0 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 0
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
n/aPinned-Dependenciesno dependencies found
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
n/aToken-PermissionsNo tokens found
0Vulnerabilities67 existing vulnerabilities detected
All dependencies 93

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 0 direct and 93 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIaccessible-pygments0.0.5indirect
PyPIalabaster0.7.16indirect
PyPIasttokens3.0.0indirect
PyPIattrs25.1.0indirect
PyPIbabel2.15.0indirect
PyPIbeautifulsoup44.12.3indirect
PyPIbreathe4.35.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2024.2.2indirect
PyPIcffi1.16.0indirect
PyPIcharset-normalizer3.3.2indirect
PyPIclick8.1.7indirect
PyPIcomm0.2.2indirect
PyPIcryptography42.0.7indirect
PyPIdebugpy1.8.12indirect
PyPIdecorator5.1.1indirect
PyPIdeprecated1.2.14indirect
PyPIdocutils0.21.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.2.2indirect
PyPIexecuting2.2.0indirect
PyPIfastjsonschema2.19.1indirect
PyPIgitdb4.0.11indirect
PyPIgitpython3.1.43indirect
PyPIgreenlet3.1.1indirect
PyPIidna3.7indirect
PyPIimagesize1.4.1indirect
PyPIimportlib-metadata8.6.1indirect
PyPIipykernel6.29.5indirect
PyPIipython8.31.0indirect
PyPIjedi0.19.2indirect
PyPIjinja23.1.4indirect
PyPIjsonschema4.23.0indirect
PyPIjsonschema-specifications2024.10.1indirect
PyPIjupyter-cache1.0.1indirect
PyPIjupyter-client8.6.3indirect
PyPIjupyter-core5.7.2indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py3.0.0indirect
PyPImarkupsafe2.1.5indirect
PyPImatplotlib-inline0.1.7indirect
PyPImdit-py-plugins0.4.1indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-nb1.1.2indirect
PyPImyst-parser3.0.1indirect
PyPInbclient0.10.2indirect
PyPInbformat5.10.4indirect
PyPInest-asyncio1.6.0indirect
PyPIpackaging24.0indirect
PyPIparso0.8.4indirect
PyPIpexpect4.9.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIprompt-toolkit3.0.50indirect
PyPIpsutil6.1.1indirect
PyPIptyprocess0.7.0indirect
PyPIpure-eval0.2.3indirect
PyPIpycparser2.22indirect
PyPIpydata-sphinx-theme0.15.2indirect
PyPIpygithub2.3.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.18.0indirect
PyPIpyjwt2.8.0indirect
PyPIpynacl1.5.0indirect
PyPIpython-dateutil2.9.0.post0indirect
PyPIpyyaml6.0.1indirect
PyPIpyzmq26.2.0indirect
PyPIreferencing0.36.2indirect
PyPIrequests2.32.2indirect
PyPIrocm-docs-core1.18.1indirect
PyPIrpds-py0.22.3indirect
PyPIsix1.17.0indirect
PyPIsmmap5.0.1indirect
PyPIsnowballstemmer2.2.0indirect
PyPIsoupsieve2.5indirect
PyPIsphinx7.3.7indirect
PyPIsphinx-book-theme1.1.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-copybutton0.5.2indirect
PyPIsphinx-design0.6.0indirect
PyPIsphinx-external-toc1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinx-notfound-page1.0.2indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-applehelp1.0.8indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-devhelp1.0.6indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-htmlhelp2.0.5indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-jsmath1.0.1indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-qthelp1.0.7indirect
PyPIsphinxcontrib-serializinghtml1.1.10indirect
PyPIsqlalchemy2.0.37indirect
PyPIstack-data0.6.3indirect
PyPItabulate0.9.0indirect
PyPItomli2.0.1indirect
PyPItornado6.4.2indirect
PyPItraitlets5.14.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.11.0indirect
PyPIurllib32.2.1indirect
PyPIwcwidth0.2.13indirect
PyPIwrapt1.16.0indirect
PyPIzipp3.21.0indirect
Dependency advisories 14

This repository publishes no package the index resolves, so its own dependency graph was assessed — 93 packages, which also include development and test pins that never ship: 14 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct.

PackageVersionRelationSeverityAdvisoriesFixed in
gitpython3.1.43indirectcritical263.1.58
certifi2024.2.2indirecthigh22024.7.4
click8.1.7indirecthigh18.3.3
cryptography42.0.7indirecthigh1249.0.0
jinja23.1.4indirecthigh63.1.6
jupyter-core5.7.2indirecthigh25.8.1
pyjwt2.8.0indirecthigh112.13.0
soupsieve2.5indirecthigh42.8.4
tornado6.4.2indirecthigh206.5.7
urllib32.2.1indirecthigh142.7.0
idna3.7indirectmoderate23.15
pynacl1.5.0indirectmoderate23.6.1
requests2.32.2indirectmoderate42.33.0
pygments2.18.0indirectlow22.20.0

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.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with ROCm/rocBLAS. Read them side by side →

63ROCm/hipBLAS[DEPRECATED] Moved to ROCm/rocm-libraries repoModerate71ooples/AiDotNet.TensorsThe fastest .NET tensor library. Beats MathNet (6x), NumSharp (3200x), matches TorchSharp CPU - pure managed C# with hand-tuned AVX2/FMA SIMD kernels. Optional CUDA/OpenCL GPU acceleration.Good80ROCm/Tensile[DEPRECATED] Moved to ROCm/rocm-libraries repoExcellent41lshqqytiger/stable-diffusion-webui-amdgpuStable Diffusion web UIWeak92tracel-ai/cubeclMulti-platform high-performance compute language extension for Rust.Excellent54tracel-ai/cubecl-hip-sysRust system bindings for AMD ROCm HIP runtime used by CubeCLModerate

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.