Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-08-28 08:38 UTC

RobotLocomotion / drake

Model-based design and verification for robotics.

C++Custom license★ 4,158 stars⑂ 1,382 forkssince Jan 2014View on GitHub ↗

RobotLocomotion/drake holds a health index of 95 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (96/100) and lowest on Security (63/100). It was last updated today. 5 contributors account for most of its recent work.

95
overall / 100
Exceptional

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.

95
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 82 is calibrated to 95 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

RobotLocomotionOrganization
524 followers58 public repossince Jan 2014

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

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIdrakepoints to another repo — not scored1.56.0499,3406913 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

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

96Exceptional · 21% of overall

Development activity

100Exceptional
How it's scored
36/36Push recencylast push 0 days ago
36/36Commit cadence52/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume1,275 commits in the last year
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
commits_last_year1,275
human_commit_share0.98
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year52
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases93 releases published
36/36Release recencylatest release 13 days ago
27/27Release cadencea release every ~23.5 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
Inputs used
releases_count93
latest_release_tagv1.56.0
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release13
mean_days_between_releases23.5

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

81Excellent · 17% of overall
How it's scored
58.7/60Stars4,158 stars
25/25Forks1,382 forks
12.3/15Watchers166 watchers
Inputs used
forks1,382
stars4,158
watchers166
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
16.9/22.5Licenselicense file present, not a recognized license
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges0
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

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

81Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
45.9/54Bus factor5 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.4/22.5Commit distributiontop contributor authored 22% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth99 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor5
contributors_sampled99
top_contributor_share0.225
How it's scored
38.1/42Issue resolution91% of issues closed
27/30PR acceptance16,227/18,059 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptanceno first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
6/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-ReviewFound 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
Inputs used
merged_prs16,227
open_issues624
closed_issues6,195
prs_merged_7d9
prs_decided_7d10
prs_merged_30d55
prs_decided_30d58
issue_closed_ratio0.908
closed_unmerged_prs1,832
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.
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backingorganization-owned
0/20Verified domain
19.6/25Owner reach524 followers of RobotLocomotion
24.9/25Track record58 public repos, account ~12 yr old
Inputs used
followers524
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginRobotLocomotion
public_repos58
account_age_days4,598

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

90Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config.ruff.toml
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
6.4/6.4.editorconfig
20/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigyes
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage sitehttps://drake.mit.edu
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics2 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsrobotics, drake
has_wikino
homepagehttps://drake.mit.edu
docs_sitehttps://drake.mit.edu
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

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

63Moderate · 16% of overall
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protectionno data
2.5/2.5CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0/2.5CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
3/7.5Code-ReviewFound 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
2.5/2.5Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0/5Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
2.2/2.5Licenselicense file detected
7.5/7.5Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
0/5Packagingno data
0/5Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0/7.5Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6.8/7.5Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate5.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Branch-Protection, Packaging. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisoriesno direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisoriesno indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstandingno advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages14
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:drake@1.56.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 14 packages. 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.

67Good · 4% of overall
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructionsno CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history89 of 98 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url
legible_history_share0.908
agent_instruction_files
agent_instruction_max_bytes
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config.ruff.toml
11/11Static type checkingC++ (statically typed)
10/10Reproducible environmentDockerfile, lockfile
2/10Demonstrated agent practice1 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance2 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilesCargo.lock, pdm.lock
has_dockerfileyes
typed_languageyes
bootstrap_files
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs
agent_commit_share0.01
toolchain_manifests
dependency_bot_commit_share0.02
How it's scored
45/45Type-checkable codeC++ (statically typed)
53.7/55Manageable file sizes97/4,014 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languageC++
largest_source_bytes579,610
source_files_sampled4,014
oversized_source_files97
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto)not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP servernot applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examplesexamples, notebooks
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples, notebooks
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

4,158GitHub stars
99contributors
1,275commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
93releases
5bus factor
624open issues
package ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • pypi package 'drake' points at a different repository (https://drake.mit.edu); excluded from ecosystem scoring

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 1,382 ⇿
0Stars
1,382Forks
90Releases

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.

Only the most recent history is shown — this repository exceeds the collection window, so the earliest history is not captured.

2004006008001,0001,2001,4001,382112017-042021-122026-08
Major 1Minor 86Patch 3

Each point covers 9 days.

OpenSSF Scorecard 5.4 / 10
5.4aggregate

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 08:37 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
n/aBranch-Protectioninternal 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
10CI-Tests30 out of 30 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 10
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
4Code-ReviewFound 14/29 approved changesets -- score normalized to 4
10Contributorsproject has 23 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
9Licenselicense file detected
10Maintained30 commit(s) and 11 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 10
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
0Signed-ReleasesProject has not signed or included provenance with any releases.
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
9Vulnerabilities1 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 7
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIipywidgetssetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPImatplotlibsetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPInotebooksetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPInumpysetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPIPillowsetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPIpydotsetup/python/pyproject.toml
PyPIPyYAMLsetup/python/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 109

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 7 direct and 102 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIipywidgetsdirect
PyPImatplotlibdirect
PyPInotebookdirect
PyPInumpydirect
PyPIpillowdirect
PyPIpydotdirect
PyPIpyyamldirect
crates.ioamd0.2.2indirect
crates.ioautocfg1.5.1indirect
crates.ioblas0.22.0indirect
crates.ioblas-sys0.7.1indirect
crates.iobumpalo3.20.3indirect
crates.iocfg-if1.0.4indirect
crates.ioclarabel0.11.1indirect
crates.iodarling0.14.4indirect
crates.iodarling_core0.14.4indirect
crates.iodarling_macro0.14.4indirect
crates.ioderive_builder0.11.2indirect
crates.ioderive_builder_core0.11.2indirect
crates.ioderive_builder_macro0.11.2indirect
crates.ioeither1.17.0indirect
crates.ioenum_dispatch0.3.13indirect
crates.ioequivalent1.0.2indirect
crates.iofnv1.0.7indirect
crates.iofutures-core0.3.33indirect
crates.iofutures-task0.3.33indirect
crates.iofutures-util0.3.33indirect
crates.iohashbrown0.17.1indirect
crates.ioident_case1.0.1indirect
crates.ioindexmap2.14.0indirect
crates.ioitertools0.11.0indirect
crates.ioitoa1.0.18indirect
crates.iojs-sys0.3.103indirect
crates.iolapack0.19.0indirect
crates.iolapack-sys0.14.0indirect
crates.iolazy_static1.5.0indirect
crates.iolibc0.2.189indirect
crates.iomemchr2.8.3indirect
crates.ionum-complex0.4.6indirect
crates.ionum-traits0.2.19indirect
crates.ioonce_cell1.21.4indirect
crates.iopaste1.0.15indirect
crates.iopin-project-lite0.2.17indirect
crates.ioproc-macro21.0.107indirect
crates.ioquote1.0.47indirect
crates.iorustversion1.0.23indirect
crates.ioserde1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde-big-array0.5.1indirect
crates.ioserde_core1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_derive1.0.229indirect
crates.ioserde_json1.0.151indirect
crates.ioslab0.4.12indirect
crates.iostrsim0.10.0indirect
crates.iosyn1.0.109indirect
crates.iosyn2.0.119indirect
crates.iosyn3.0.3indirect
crates.iothiserror1.0.69indirect
crates.iothiserror-impl1.0.69indirect
crates.iounicode-ident1.0.24indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen0.2.126indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro0.2.126indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-macro-support0.2.126indirect
crates.iowasm-bindgen-shared0.2.126indirect
crates.ioweb-time0.2.4indirect
crates.iozmij1.0.23indirect
PyPIanyio4.14.2indirect
PyPIanysqlite0.0.5indirect
PyPIast-serialize0.6.0indirect
PyPIblinker1.9.0indirect
PyPIcertifi2026.7.22indirect
PyPIdep-logic0.6.0indirect
PyPIdistlib0.4.3indirect
PyPIfilelock3.32.0indirect
PyPIfindpython0.8.0indirect
PyPIh110.16.0indirect
PyPIhishel1.3.0indirect
PyPIhttpcore1.0.9indirect
PyPIhttpx0.28.1indirect
PyPIid1.6.1indirect
PyPIidna3.18indirect
PyPIinstaller1.0.1indirect
PyPIlibrt0.13.0indirect
PyPIlief1.0.0indirect
PyPImarkdown-it-py4.2.0indirect
PyPImdurl0.1.2indirect
PyPImosek11.1.2indirect
PyPImsgpack1.2.1indirect
PyPImypy2.3.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec1.1.1indirect
PyPIpbs-installer2026.7.18indirect
PyPIpdmindirect
PyPIpdm2.28.0indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.11.0indirect
PyPIpygments2.20.0indirect
PyPIpyproject-hooks1.2.0indirect
PyPIpython-discovery1.5.0indirect
PyPIpython-dotenv1.2.2indirect
PyPIresolvelib1.2.1indirect
PyPIrich15.0.0indirect
PyPIshellingham1.5.4indirect
PyPIsocksio1.0.0indirect
PyPItomlkit0.15.1indirect
PyPItruststore0.10.4indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.16.0indirect
PyPIunearth0.18.2indirect
PyPIurllib32.7.0indirect
PyPIvirtualenv21.7.0indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:drake@1.56.0 pulls in 14 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

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.

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 statisticsPyPI.